Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Immigration Advisers

Mr. Neil Gerrard: What progress he has made in curbing the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. [112572]

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to curb the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. [112582]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Under part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the provision of immigration advice or services will be prohibited unless a person is registered with the immigration services commissioner; authorised to practise by a designated professional body; or exempt under the terms of the scheme.
We are in the process of appointing the immigration services commissioner, who will lead the body that administers the scheme.

Mr. Gerrard: May I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and encourage her to take a tough line with some of the people who currently give advice? In particular, will she ensure that solicitors are included in the scheme? I still come across far too many cases involving solicitors who give the most appalling advice at extortionate cost. Recently, a solicitor advised one of my constituents from Jamaica to apply for asylum, when that person had a straightforward application for a student visa. Of course, my constituent did not take the advice. Will my hon. Friend ensure that solicitors are covered and that nothing in the scheme has a damaging effect on the advice that is sometimes well given by small community groups?

Mrs. Roche: I am extremely well aware of the problem, both as a Minister and as a constituency Member of Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend that, since January, all legal aid work has had to be undertaken by quality-assured suppliers. I know that the Law Society has that in mind—it is one of the professional bodies included in the scheme.

Mr. Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in 1992, the Select Committee on Home Affairs drew attention to unscrupulous immigration advisers? The Conservative Government had five years to do something about the problem, but they did nothing. What does my hon. Friend say about that?

Mrs. Roche: I certainly do recall that matter, because I was a member of the Committee; indeed, I was a member of its Sub-Committee. That Select Committee was chaired by a Conservative Member and recommended that the then Conservative Government should do something about the problem. They completely failed to do so, which resulted in the delay and has led to


unscrupulous asylum cases. Who was the Minister at the time? None other than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the situation far too serious for such cheap jibes? Is it not true that monstrous profiteering, at the expense of the vulnerable and gullible, has to be stopped? People are gravely anxious about the steady increase in the number of bogus asylum seekers. The situation in many London boroughs is intolerable; there are neither the housing nor the schools necessary to cope. Will the hon. Lady give us hope that there will be some effective curb on unscrupulous advisers and that she will get a grip on her Department and bring the inflow to a halt?

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to say something about unscrupulous immigration advisers, because the situation is deplorable; they serve nobody. However, the hon. Gentleman was a Member when the Conservative Government, whom he supported, were in power. They introduced the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary moved amendments to that measure when we were in opposition to do exactly what we are doing at present. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman supported my right hon. Friend's amendments, but I welcome a late convert to the cause.

Mr. David Ruffley: Is not the Minister ashamed of the fact that, owing to the Government's incompetence, the asylum application backlog has doubled to more than 100,000 since May 1997?

Mrs. Roche: One of the facts that the hon. Gentleman might like to consider is that the average time, when the previous Government—

Mr. Ruffley: Is she ashamed?

Mrs. Roche: If the hon. Gentleman would keep quiet for a moment, he might be interested in my answer. He asked a question and I shall answer it; what he is about to hear may be uncomfortable for him. First, there is the backlog left by his Government. Secondly, under that Government, the average time to determine an asylum application was 20 months; under the Labour Government, the time has gone down to 13 months—and it will go down even further.

Licensing Hours

Mr. David Watts: What plans he has to change the licensing hours for public houses and clubs. [112573]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have been looking at licensing hours as part of our review of licensing law. We shall shortly publish a White Paper setting out our legislative proposals for reform of the licensing system as a whole.

Mr. Watts: I thank the Minister for his reply. May I draw his attention to the fact that several private

members' clubs are worried about the implications of the proposals? Would he meet a delegation from that group to try to resolve their concerns?

Mr. O'Brien: I have already met some representatives of private members' clubs to discuss their concerns. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall take on board the points that they made. When the White Paper is published, they will see that we have taken cognisance of their concerns.

Sir Peter Tapsell: As the media appear to have been briefed that it is in the Government's mind to introduce 24-hour licensing, will the Minister ensure that in his White Paper he sets out very clearly the measures that the Government propose to take to protect those private householders who live near pubs and clubs and who need to sleep between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am?

Mr. O'Brien: We think that there is a good case for greater flexibility in opening hours, but we need to take care that the new laws, which may well in due course come forward, take account of the interests of people who live near licensed premises as well as of those who would seek to use them. I certainly hope that, in due course, when we bring forward our proposals, there will be a proper balance between the interests of those who live near public houses or other licensed premises and want to ensure that they are not disturbed by unnecessary nuisance or disorder, and the interests of those who wish to use licensed premises in order, quite properly, to enjoy themselves.

Voting (New Technology)

Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps he is taking to enable new technology to be used for voting in national and local elections. [112574]

Jane Griffiths: What steps he is taking to enable new technology to be used in national and local elections. [112584]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Representation of the People Bill includes provisions to allow local authorities to pilot innovative electoral procedures, such as electronic voting and electronic counting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been able to give provisional approval to six such schemes to be piloted at this May's local elections.

Mr. Chapman: While I welcome the piloting of electronic voting at the local government elections this year, if we are to make voting as accessible as possible, do we not have to go much further and consider all-postal ballots, mobile balloting and more flexible times and dates for voting?

Mr. O'Brien: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider all those things. I hope that, under the provisions of the Bill, we shall be able to pilot many of them and ensure that there is greater access to


enable all those who have the right to vote to do so more easily. I hope that that will increase the number of people who participate in our democracy.

Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of democracy, we should all be concerned about the declining turnout at elections? Does he also agree that people will not understand the continuing Conservative opposition to measures to make voting easier and more accessible?

Mr. O'Brien: We have had varying degrees of support from the Opposition for our legislation. I believe that all Members of the House should be in favour of encouraging more people to go to the polling station and vote. It was with regret that we encountered some opposition to particular aspects of this legislation that could have encouraged people to exercise their proper democratic right to vote.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: While I welcome new technologies, does the Minister agree that some people—such as my mother, who lives in Lichfield—are quite nervous about using things like automated teller machine cards? My mother likes writing out cheques, and I am quite sure that she would like to be able to do the old-fashioned tick on the box—hopefully against my name. Does the Minister accept that, in this ruthless drive for new technology, he may well alienate older people who are frightened of using electronic devices? Or will this new initiative be as effective as the initiative announced in the first three months of the new Labour Government, when they said that they were going to introduce new electronic dispatch boxes? Like so many other promises, it has come to nought.

Mr. O'Brien: I think the hon. Gentleman is at least guaranteed one vote—or is he?—and, by the way, we normally put Xs, not ticks, on ballot papers. We certainly aim to encourage all people to vote, and we have taken precautions, in the legislation and in shaping the role of the Electoral Commission, to ensure that any spread of the types of pilot scheme that we shall now consider will be of the sort that will encourage people, especially the elderly, to feel comfortable with going into polling stations and casting their ballot. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he is to get only one vote, we shall want his mother to be able to vote.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister put my mind at rest by reassuring me that voting will continue in person, that voting electronically will not be open to fraud and that it will be deliverable in villages and market towns such as Easingwold, Thirsk, Bedale and Boroughbridge in north Yorkshire?

Mr. O'Brien: We certainly want to ensure that the new pilot schemes will be safe from abuse by any of those who might seek improperly to use them. None of the applications being piloted this year involves systems such as internet voting, but we hope that, in future years, we shall consider pilot scheme applications that involve such innovations. However, we will want to be reassured that, even when we pilot them, they are secure in terms of the operation of voting and that we do not have problems with personation, improper voting procedures and electoral

abuse. We want to be very careful and we hope that the Electoral Commission's role in considering the pilot schemes will assist us in ensuring that things are done properly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What will the checks be against electoral fraud when votes are exercised and counted electronically? At present, the parties can send their people to the counts to keep an eye on the votes and to see how they are stacking up. What will the equivalent system be so that the representatives of the parties can ensure that we do not have a fiddled franchise?

Mr. O'Brien: We certainly want to ensure that there is no fiddled franchise and that we have a system that operates in a secure manner. If we receive any applications—I must tell my hon. Friend that we have received none as yet—we will want to ensure that the checks that are carried out provide safeguards. I cannot give him a list of the safeguards that we might have to put in place, because we have received no applications yet. I suspect that electronic and internet systems are not suitable at the moment for carrying out such operations. However, we will not close our mind to such systems in the years ahead.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). In many ways, he has been the parent of many of the very good ideas for a rolling register that are being introduced in legislation.

Probation Service

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on his plans to change the name of the Probation Service. [112575]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to announce that we have listened to the representations of members of the House and others. Community punishment and rehabilitation will still be included in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, but in its aims for the service rather than as a name. We intend that the new unified service will be called the National Probation Service of England and Wales.

Mr. Bercow: My joy at that reply is literally boundless. May I tell the Minister that, in the light of the 87 objections to his proposals that have already been publicly expressed, I was minded to ask him whether he would be willing today to concede gracefully, to withdraw his silly plan and to earn the shower of plaudits that an omission of error would bring? He has done so, and I warmly congratulate him—at the risk of inflicting the gravest possible damage on his future political career.

Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to have brought a little joy into the hon. Gentleman's life.

Ms Oona King: I, too, was surprised at my right hon. Friend's response. I wondered whether rehabilitation within the community punishment service could not be called "Recompense", which seemed better than CRAPS, CARPS or the other alternatives.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has made her point.

Police Manpower

Mr. Graham Brady: What forecast he has made of the total number of police officers in England and Wales at 31 March. [112576]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Following the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the number of police officers at any one time is a matter for the chief constable of an area to determine within available resources. At the end of September 1999, there were 125,404 officers in post. Audited information on police numbers for 31 March of this year should be available at the end of June.
Under the crime fighting fund, funding is being made available from April 2000 to pay for the recruitment of an additional 5,000 officers over and above the number who would otherwise have been recruited. Pressures on police funding and their possible impact on police numbers are also being considered in the 2000 spending review.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. Given that in Greater Manchester we now have 120 police officers fewer than we had at the last general election, and that in the past year the figures for recorded crime in Greater Manchester have risen by 10,000, is it not obvious that the Government are failing to deliver on their promise to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime? Now that we know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was only joking when he said that there would be no more selection in schools, will the Home Secretary tell us whether he was only joking when he said that he would be tough on crime?

Mr. Straw: We most certainly are delivering on our promises. I am not clear about the figures for rising crime which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because the figures that I have show that there was an increase in Greater Manchester, but it was a very small one of 0.2 per cent., or 754 offences, and not 10,000.
As to police numbers, the hon. Gentleman will know that between 1993 and 1998, under budgets for which the Administration whom he supported were responsible, police numbers fell significantly. Unfortunately, they have continued to fall, not least because of budgets that we set at the level that the previous Administration had suggested. However, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of allocations that we have made under the crime fighting fund, police numbers in Greater Manchester will rise by 378, and I hope that he will applaud that.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increases proposed for Essex county under the Government's crime fighting fund, which mean that there will be 23 extra officers next year, 40 the year after and 40 the year after that? Will he explain to both Opposition parties what increases and reductions mean? Will he also explain further to those parties the programme of civilianisation, because Essex police officers are having a job trying to explain it to Opposition Members?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, over the next three years, we have provided

allocations for an increase of 103 officers in the Essex police force. On the variations that take place in particular areas, I can do no better, so far as Essex is concerned, than to quote the Colchester divisional commander, Superintendent Julian Field. He says that police numbers
fluctuate up and down all the time. Sometimes people are attached to us for a little while and sometimes people are seconded.
As for the loss of 12 officers—a policy that the previous Administration at one stage applauded—he said:
That is because of a programme of civilianisation of officers who performed a range of jobs like crime prevention and licensing.
Before Opposition Members make too much of the reduction in police numbers, I remind them that it was a deliberate policy of the previous Administration, which was flagged up in their 1992 manifesto, that many jobs previously undertaken by police officers should in future be undertaken by civilians.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is often very straight with the House. Will he be straight with the House about police numbers? Is not the truth that although he has been consistent on the figure of 5,000 extra officers which he announced at the Labour party conference, that is extra to a number of recruits, which has now changed three times? The total figure for extra recruits over the next three years is now 17,500. The projections show that 16,800 officers are likely to leave, which means that the net figure of extra officers is 700, and we are already 1,600 down since the last election.
Would not the Home Secretary's promise be as hollow as the one that he has accused the Tories of making if he were now to say that, at the end of this Parliament, the Government will have delivered more police officers than there were at the beginning? Are we not likely to have at least 1,000 fewer officers and, if so, what will he do about that?

Mr. Straw: Precisely because the previous Administration passed into law the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, which transferred the power over police numbers from the Home Secretary of the day to chief police officers, I made no promises about the total number of police officers before the election, at the election or since. I do not believe, as the Conservative party does, in pretending to the public that it is possible for the Home Secretary to deliver something that no Home Secretary can, within the current law, deliver.
I have, however, promised, and will deliver, the money to provide for 5,000 additional recruits over and above those that the police service was otherwise going to recruit. We have set out in full the projections on which those bids have been based.
I have said that I hope that police numbers will be above those at the previous election, but I cannot in any way guarantee that—not least because the level depends not only on the number of recruits but on the level of wastage. We—particularly the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—are working to see whether there are ways


in which we may suggest that officers should not leave the police service prematurely, as well as ensuring money for the 5,000 additional officers.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although total numbers are obviously important, their use in the police force and how forces use their resources is equally important? There is still wide variation between the best and worst force in the country, and it is a priority to ensure that resources and numbers available are better used.

Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The same message applies to the police service as applies to the health and education services: inputs are no guarantees of outputs. My hon. Friend and I know that Lancashire police service, with no better resources than any other, has been able to deliver significantly better results, with a record reduction in crime of 10 per cent. over last year, owing to more effective management and better strategies than some other services.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: How much confidence can people who live in London have in the Home Secretary's stewardship when they have borne the hugest—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hugest?"]—rise in the decline of police numbers? Is he aware that the Metropolitan police alone accounts for 792 officers lost, and the City of London another 114 officers lost, since his term of office began? Before he resorts to the answer of "civilianisation", as he did in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), is he aware that the number of civilian staff in the Met has fallen from 11,390 to 10,791 under his stewardship?

Mr. Straw: The latter arises as a result of an outsourcing contract, under which people who were previously in the public sector are now in the private sector. As for the number of officers in the Metropolitan police service, I can guarantee to the right hon. Lady and the Conservative party—I absolutely guarantee this—that our record from 1997 to 2002 will be infinitely better than hers over the previous five years. Has she forgotten the record cut in staffing at officer level in the Metropolitan police service of 1,773 in the six years from 1993-98? She should hang her head in shame at her record on the Metropolitan police service.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, just for the record, how many police constables there were in the Met when he took over and how many there are now?

Mr. Straw: As police constables have to be supervised by sergeants, inspectors and other officers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, they do. Without that supervision, there is poor management, which in the past has been a major problem in the Met. I tell the right hon. Lady that, in 1993—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The excuses and explanations should be coming from the Conservative party, given its record on the Metropolitan police service. In 1993—[Laughter.] The right hon. Lady laughs at the decline in the Metropolitan police service that took place under her Administration. In 1993—

Mr. David Lidington: Labour is in charge now.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's party was in charge in 1993, when there were 27,867 police officers. By 1998, under the last Budget set by the Conservative Administration, there were only just over 26,000. That was the Conservative record.

Miss Widdecombe: I was laughing not at crime, but at the Home Secretary. He seems to imagine that the past two and a half years have not happened; that the decline of more than 792 in the number of Met officers has not happened; that the decline of more than 2,000 in the number of officers right across the country has not happened; that the fall in the number of police constables has not happened; that the first rise in crime for six years has not happened; and that the revolving doors prison policy has not happened. The right hon. Gentleman is in charge. Let him take responsibility.

Mr. Straw: I am happy to debate the issue of police numbers, but the last people in the world to protest their own record are members of the Administration who held office between 1992 and 1997, and the very last people in the world to call for more money to be spent on the police service are the Conservative Opposition.
I remind the right hon. Lady that the money that we are putting into the police service—the £1.24 billion over these three years, and the £400 million for crime reduction—has been condemned as reckless by her and her party. We had further evidence of what would happen if a Conservative Government were ever elected from the comments made on 1 March by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), shadow Treasury spokesman. Speaking with the authority of the shadow Chancellor, which the right hon. Lady certainly does not do, the hon. Member for West Dorset promised spending on critical public services. He said:
By those, I mean health and education
but only
possibly … the police and defence.—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 493.]
That is what we can expect from the Conservatives—just the possibility of a little additional spending on the police service, whereas the spending by us is regarded as reckless.

Paedophile Crime

Mr. Bill O'Brien: What recent initiatives he has taken to reduce the incidence of paedophile crime; and if he will make a statement. [112577]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government attach great importance to protecting children from sex offenders. We are introducing legislation this Session to create a comprehensive scheme to prevent unsuitable people, including sex offenders, from gaining access to children through working with them. We are establishing a criminal records bureau. We are also investing in the Prison Service sex offender treatment programmes. Sex offender orders and extended sentences for sexual and violent offenders are now available to the courts. In police


terms, we are focusing on the international paedophile networks through the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will be helped by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill that is now being considered by the House. The Association of Chief Police Officers has established a register of sex offenders, which contains more than 10,000 names.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the efforts being made by him and his colleagues to ensure that no danger is posed by sex offenders. I realise that the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is a valuable tool for the police in tracking sex offenders. In the Horbury community in my constituency recently, there was great concern about the fact that a registered paedophile had been seen around schools and with children due to assemble. It seems that further regulations are needed, or instructions to the police with regard to the tracking of sex offenders. Another problem involving young offenders—10, 11 and 12-year-olds who offend against small children—needs to be examined by the Department. Will my hon. Friend take note of the concerns that I express on behalf of my constituents, who are troubled by the presence of sex offenders in the community?

Mr. Clarke: I note the points that my hon. Friend makes. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the police, who, under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, have achieved through the police national computer almost 97 per cent. compliance by those required to register. That is a tribute to police work on this type of crime. My hon. Friend suggests an initiative to track sex offenders; that technique is used and can be further developed.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Did the Minister see the exhibition of literature sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that was on display in Committee Room 18 on Thursday last week? If he has not seen that exhibition, may I commend it to him? The production of such literature for influencing children at school—presumably after the abolition of section 28—constitutes in itself a sexual offence against children.

Mr. Clarke: I did not see the exhibition in Committee Room 18 to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Much work is being done through the education service and schools throughout the country to make children aware of the dangers that they may experience. In the context of the section 28 debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has issued substantial and strong guidelines to help schools to guide their children effectively.

Mr. John Heppell: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the police, the probation service and the Prison Service in Nottingham on the undoubted success of the special unit at Nottingham prison, where two of the most notorious paedophiles have been housed for six months without incident or any risk to children in the area?

Mr. Clarke: I am happy to congratulate the police, especially the Nottinghamshire police. The Prison Service has made a major effort to improve our ability to

rehabilitate and deal with some of the most persistent offenders. I am sure that the House would want to congratulate Nottingham prison on its work.

Intelligence Services

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the procedure for supervising the activities of the intelligence services. [112578]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provide that the security and intelligence agencies are under the Secretary of State's authority. The head of each agency controls its operations. The Acts also establish tribunals.
The 1994 Act established the Intelligence and Security Committee, which comprises hon. Members and Members of the other place. It examines the expenditure, administration and policy of the agencies. It reports annually to the Prime Minister, who lays a copy of the report, excluding matters that may prejudice the discharge of the agencies' functions, before Parliament.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Home Secretary re-examine the case of Mr. Peter Bleach, who is currently in prison in India? He has argued in detail that he is in prison because of unfair treatment, and inaccurate information that the intelligence service provided to the court. If it is not possible for the Home Secretary to re-examine the case, will he at least make representations to the Government of India to ask them to review their legislation to enable Mr. Bleach to serve his penalty in the United Kingdom? That facility is available in many other countries.

Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am happy to meet him to discuss the case, but any question of an appeal, and the admissibility of evidence in the case, has to be a matter for the appeal courts in India. Neither I nor any other Minister have any locus in the case.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is an agreement between the United Kingdom and India to secure the mutual repatriation of prisoners who are sentenced in those countries. However, its implementation is being held up by the absence of legislation to effect it in India. I am happy to make representations to the Indian Government to secure its early implementation.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Home Secretary reflect on the fact that, uniquely among western democratic countries, we have the least parliamentary oversight of our security services? Not only is that an embarrassment to us as a democratic country: it flies in the face of our human rights obligations. Former presidents of the National Union of Students might be content with current arrangements, but some of us are not. Our security services have no accountability in this place. They are out


of control and it is time that the Government—a Labour Government—applied themselves to remedying that wrong.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept the assumption behind my hon. Friend's question that our agencies are subject to less parliamentary oversight than those of any other European country.

Mr. Mackinlay: There is none.

Mr. Straw: There is considerable oversight by parliamentarians. If my hon. Friend is making the nice point that the Intelligence and Security Committee is not appointed by the House, I accept that. However, any hon. Member who has appeared before the Committee knows that it is composed entirely of parliamentarians and that it does its job thoroughly and effectively. It is one of many ways in which the agencies are under control and accountable to the House.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Home Secretary agree that no intelligence service can operate effectively if its former employees break their lifelong obligation of confidentiality? Given that the Government are pursuing relentlessly the egomaniac ex-officer of MI5, David Shayler, will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that some of the criticisms that the Labour party made of the previous Conservative Government when they pursued the egomaniac ex-officer Peter Wright were less than justified?

Mr. Straw: The House will excuse me if I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman down the path that he invites me to take, except to say that I confirm that there is a lifelong obligation expected of staff, and I am glad to have the support of both sides of the House for the fact that that obligation should properly be enforced.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), that there is accountability to Parliament through the Committee, and that its members are diligent in the way in which we carry out our duties? However, my hon. Friend has a case. I agree with him that the Committee should be a Committee of Parliament.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the reality of the accountability from, as it were, the other side of the table. I am sure that he will confirm also that Secretaries of State, heads of the agencies and many others who are examined by the Committee on which he sits are subject, as they should be. to extremely thorough scrutiny, and that in due course a report is made to the House.
It is in the nature of the business of the agencies that whether the Committee is or is not a Select Committee, its reports would have to be extremely carefully edited and that operational details could not be made public. I understand the case that is made for the Committee to be a Select Committee, but I do not think that it would or could operate in a significantly or substantively different

way in that form. As my hon. Friend will know from the report which was published recently, we keep this matter under review.

Jury Trial

Mr. David Heath: If he will postpone his plans to change the right to jury trial until after the publication of the review of criminal justice under the chairmanship of Sir Robin Auld. [112579]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): No. This measure is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system to make it more responsive to the needs of the victims of crime, of the public, and of defendants alike. This issue has been considered extensively over the past seven years, not least by the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993. On each occasion the conclusion has been the same—that reform is required. Lord Justice Auld is aware of our intention to legislate and will, no doubt, take this into account in conducting his review. However, the Lord Chief Justice has already made it clear that our measure has his support and that of an overwhelming number of the senior judiciary.

Mr. Heath: At the risk of being accused of being a Hampstead liberal, and a bearded one at that, may I suggest to the Home Secretary that those who oppose the measure do so not because they are weak on crime or because they wish to preserve the salaries of lawyers but because they have a real interest in British justice?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has failed to persuade many Labour Members who have not yet subsided into acquiescence? Will he consider again whether there is a case for an independent and considered view to be taken before he proceeds with legislation, which in any event will fail in another place?

Mr. Straw: On independent and thorough review, this issue has been considered time without number by senior and independent people, including the members of the royal commission on criminal justice, who came to a unanimous view that the proposed change was needed in the interests of justice. On that basis, it is needed both in respect of victims and defendants. I am aware that there was some anxiety and concern among Members on both sides of the House, but I am delighted to say that there was a majority of 126 on Second Reading, and that only one Labour Member voted against the Bill at that stage.

Helen Jones: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the research that shows that the majority of defendants who opt for Crown court trial in an either-way case plead guilty once they reach the Crown court. Those of us who have worked in magistrates courts are aware that putting off the evil day is a powerful motive for defendants. Does he agree that this approach imposes an intolerable stress on the victims of crime and prevents other defendants who are awaiting trial in the Crown court from having their cases dealt with


expeditiously? Will he take that into account in proceeding with his proposals, so as to ensure that other defendants are given an equal hearing in any discussions?

Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings considerable experience to the issue. The truth is that these are cases in which, typically, the defendant will plead guilty anyway, and knows that he or she will do so, and the amounts involved—a can of Tennents lager may have been stolen—are relatively small. They string the system out in the vain hope that they will get a shorter sentence when, in practice, they get a longer one. The Conservative party, having originally supported the proposal, has to explain why it is contributing to substantial extra delays in serious cases coming before the Crown court that could and should be tried only by the Crown court.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Home Secretary must recognise that he has considerable lack of conviction on this matter, having attacked the proposals—which were not supported by Conservative Members as he suggests, but put forward for consultation—when they were made by the royal commission. In view of that attack, it is a bit rich to tell the House and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) of the royal commission's support. When, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Home Secretary's Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is thrown out by the other place, like the (No. 1) Bill, and as he failed to convince some 29 of his own Back Benchers in last week's debate, will he recognise that, as the proposal was no part of the Labour manifesto at the last general election, he would be entirely wrong to try to force it through the other place after a defeat? Will he then lick his wounds and crawl away?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is being a touch economical with his recollection of the position of the previous Administration. We had it confirmed by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) only last week that, had the Conservatives won the last general election and had he been in office, he would have introduced the measure. It was not put out for consultation, but for deliberation and for decision. As for the position of the other place, I hope that it will recognise that this is the elected House and that the will of the elected House must take precedence. If the hon. Gentleman is offering the alternative suggestion, I have to tell him that having any truck with it is dangerous for the future of the Conservative party.

Reparation Orders

Mr. Paul Goggins: How many reparation orders have been made since September 1998. [112581]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): A total of 1,110 reparation orders were made across the five pilot areas from 30 September 1998 to 31 January 2000. The reparation order requires young offenders to face up to the consequences of their offence for their victims and the wider community. The order will be implemented nationally on 1 June.

Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and assure him that there is widespread support for

reparation orders, not least as a measure of restoration to the victims of crime. What assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the orders that have been made so far and what steps is he taking to ensure that the courts make maximum use of the orders when they become available nationally later this year?

Mr. Clarke: We are analysing carefully the effects of the various schemes in the five pilot areas: the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster; Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight; Wolverhampton; Sheffield; and Blackburn. The general impression—I have seen a number of the schemes myself—is extremely optimistic and we are encouraged by the extent to which people are taking part. Our assessment of the courts' willingness to use the orders is that they are positive and enthusiastic because they recognise the major advantages of reparation as a means of dealing with young offenders.

Mr. Owen Paterson: How many of those who have received reparation orders have committed further crimes?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot answer that question, but I can say that 5.1 per cent. of all reparation orders made in the period have been breached compared with 13 per cent. of probation orders. Generally, there has been less breaching and we believe that there has been less return to crime.

DNA Tests (Norfolk)

Dr. Ian Gibson: How many DNA tests his Department has carried out in Norfolk in the last two years; and with what results. [112583]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Between April 1998 and December 1999, the Forensic Science Service received from Norfolk 8,425 criminal justice samples taken from suspects charged, reported, cautioned or convicted of a recordable offence, and 719 samples from stains left at scenes of crime. From those samples, the FSS reported 871 matches on the national DNA database between criminal justice samples and samples from crime scene stains, and 61 matches on the database between stains from different crime scenes.

Dr. Gibson: Clearly, the Norfolk service is using the new DNA technology to great effect. Is my hon. Friend aware that the technology is in some disrepute in some quarters in the United States, because some commercialised labs have misinterpreted and miscalculated the data? Will he ensure that, as we build up the national DNA database, we use the best and most up-to-date DNA technology, and that the information that is fed into it is accurate and independent?

Mr. Clarke: I can give the House those assurances. During the process, we shall introduce more up-to-date methods of sampling DNA. As my hon. Friend is aware, I know the force in Norfolk very well. It is one of the forces that has been leading in the use of DNA technology. What is most impressive is that a crime stain loaded on the database has a 40 per cent. chance—a four in 10 chance—of being matched against a potential


suspect. Approximately 500 matches are reported to the police for investigation each week. It is a substantial means of attacking crime.

Prison Service

Mr. David Chaytor: What steps he is taking to reduce absence through sickness in the Prison Service. [112585]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We have targeted staff days lost and introduced an annual key performance indicator to measure success in reducing staff absence through sickness. We have taken steps to improve data collection so as to provide managers with better quality information, and have introduced new guidance for managing and reducing days lost through sickness.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and congratulate him on his firm, thorough and systematic approach to this difficult problem. Does he share the views expressed in last year's report of the Public Accounts Committee that certain prisons are vulnerable to unrest as a result of the high level of sickness absence?

Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to the Prison Officers Association and the National Audit Office for their work in this area. There is no doubt that excessive staff absences due to sickness have an adverse impact not only on good order and discipline, but on our capacity to deliver programmes to reduce reoffending. We are determined to bear down on those absences to stamp out bad practice. We also want to celebrate good practice, because prison managers, in conjunction with staff and their unions, are doing excellent work to get a grip of this problem.

Asylum Statistics

Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement about the asylum statistics for 1999. [112586]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): There were 71,000 applications made and 32 decisions taken during 1999. As a result of the Government's investment in the asylum process, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of decisions taken so far this year. The total number of decisions taken during January 2000 was 4,000, and the early indications are that the figure for the past four weeks is likely to be more than 8,000. In the first week of this month alone, more than 2,200 initial decisions were made. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the numbers of decisions taken are now at record levels. The average time taken for an initial decision in December 1999 was 13 months compared with 20 months in April 1997.

Mr. Gray: Although I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply, it sounded a little glib and complacent. In an earlier response, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), suggested that the number of applications pending was due to the backlog left over from the previous Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman

admit that about 104,000 applications are outstanding? His complacent reply that the number of decisions has gone up to 4,000 from 32 last year shows that he misunderstands the problem. More importantly. will he also admit that the number of applications has doubled since the Government came to power. that it is rising and that they are doing nothing about it?

Mr. Straw: I am not in the least complacent about the situation: indeed, I am very concerned about it. Had I been complacent, I would not have put any provisions in place to deal with the problems caused by the Siemens contract, which was signed indelibly in 1996 by the previous Administration and has caused such severe problems ever since. It is a mark of our concern about the system that we have significantly invested in the asylum and immigration process. The investment is now showing signs of paying off: as I have said, 8,000 asylum applications were decided in the past four weeks.

Ms Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend has taken welcome action to relieve pressure on communities in Kent and London from those seeking asylum, but will he ensure that local authorities outside London receive information and advice as quickly as possible about the extra assistance that may be available to them, so that they can plan ahead carefully to receive asylum seekers?

Mr. Straw: We are doing everything that we can to ensure that local authorities are fully informed in respect of asylum seekers who are being dispersed to their areas. I have asked that arrangements be made to inform hon. Members so far as is possible when there are significant developments with regard to asylum seekers in their constituencies.

Dr. Vincent Cable: What response is the Home Secretary giving to local authorities such as mine in London, where the cost in the next financial year of accommodating asylum-seeker families will be about £25 on the average council tax? When precisely do the Government intend to assume financial responsibility for a national problem, as they have undertaken to do in principle?

Mr. Straw: On the funding that is directly the responsibility of my Department, I have arranged that we meet additionally an £8 million shortfall for 1999–2000, so that local authorities are compensated in full for their costs, as I believe they should be. There has been a particular problem in respect of unaccompanied minors who claim asylum, which is, at the moment, the responsibility of the Department of Health. I am in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and hope for a satisfactory outcome for local authorities. All of us recognise that the arrangements have placed a considerable burden on local authorities. We recognise the strength of their case to be compensated properly for that.

Mr. David Lidington: What target did the Home Secretary set the national asylum support service on the units of accommodation to be secured by 1 April this year and on the introduction of the new support system? How many units of accommodation has it been


able to secure for that date? What is the shortfall in the Government's figures? Will he finally admit to the House that the new asylum seeker support system, about which he has been boasting for so long, is turning out in practice to be a complete and utter shambles?

Mr. Straw: I would be happy to provide the details that the hon. Gentleman sought by letter. We determined that there was adequate accommodation to start phasing in the national asylum support scheme, so that we could end the entitlement to cash social security benefits for all new applicants from 3 April 2000. The availability of cash social security benefits, which was instituted and confirmed by the previous Administration, has been one of the major pull factors in this country being seen as more attractive than others. It is we who are bringing that to an end for new applicants from 3 April. Far from supporting that, the Conservative party—following a pledge by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—would have maintained the availability of cash benefits not only for existing applicants, but for all new applicants, at a cost of £500 million per annum.

Clandestine Immigrants

Mr. Robin Corbett: What recent estimate he has made of the number of clandestine immigrants brought into the United Kingdom in heavy goods vehicles. [112587]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Immigration and nationality directorate records show that 11,500 clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom were identified between July and December 1999.

Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for the proper, responsible manner in which she is tackling the issue. Does she find it extraordinary that Conservative Members should line up with those who make vast sums from smuggling people illegally into the United Kingdom, rather than backing the measures that the Government have proposed to extend carrier liability to the owners of lorries, buses and coaches? Will she say what progress is being made with the industry in working out a code of practice to assist in better deterring and detecting clandestine entrants arriving in the backs of lorries?

Mrs. Roche: We have consulted widely with the industry, and we have tabled the draft code of practice. I have also announced that, on 3 April, we shall introduce the civil penalty provisions. We have repeatedly given the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Conservative Members opportunities to join and back the Government on the issue, but they have completely refused to do so. Criminal acts are clearly being committed, and it would be nice to have the support of the right hon. Lady and other Conservative Members in trying to do something about them.

ECHR Judgment (Thompson and Venables)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables, who were convicted of the murder of James Bulger. This statement follows my oral statement to the House, on 16 December 1999, which was the day on which the judgment was given. I said then that the Government accepted our obligations under the European convention on human rights to abide by the Court's findings, but that I would need to study the detail and would report back to Parliament as soon as possible.
My statement today relates to England and Wales. Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers have been considering what action will be necessary there, and announcements will be made in due course.
First, I offer my profound sympathy to the family of James Bulger, whose grief at that terrible murder is compounded by what must appear to them to be a never-ending cycle of court judgments on their son's murderers. Although I know that it will be of no comfort to them, the European convention on human rights has been an international obligation of the United Kingdom for 50 years, and successive Governments have been bound to give effect to the judgments of its Court. That Court, as the House will recall, is an institution of the Council of Europe and not of the European Union. From 2 October 2000, the convention itself will be incorporated into our domestic law, under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was welcomed and supported by all parties in the House.
The Court's judgment in the case of Thompson and Venables concerned both the law on sentencing and court practice and procedures. It therefore has to be dealt with through a mixture of legal and administrative changes. I have consulted the Lord Chief Justice about the conduct of Crown court trials. On 16 February, he issued a practice direction to judges on the trial of children and young persons in the Crown court. A copy of the direction has been placed in the Library. The direction is a key part of the response to the judgment.
The first issue on which the Court found against the United Kingdom was in respect of article 6(1), on the right to a fair trial. The Court said that, although special arrangements had been made in the Crown court, the two youths—then aged 11—were highly unlikely to have felt able to follow the proceedings properly or to pass information to their lawyers.
The European Court did not conclude that young people should not be tried in the Crown court. For our part, the Government believe that serious crimes with serious penalties continue to need a high-level judicial process, before a judge and jury. Rather, it is necessary to ensure that those trials take account of the particular circumstances of young people, although that must never undermine the seriousness of the proceedings or make it more difficult to convict the guilty.
If justice is not open, it cannot be seen to be fair. Therefore, juvenile trials for serious crimes must be held in open court. However, to avoid an unnecessarily

overbearing atmosphere in the courtroom, the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction makes it clear that, although the proceedings must be in open court, judges should be prepared to restrict attendance of the public at the trial to a relatively small number.
On facilities for the press, courts already have discretion to limit the number of press representatives in court, taking account of the public's right to be informed about trials. The Lord Chief Justice has advised that limits on press numbers should, as necessary, be coupled with arrangements for audio and, if possible, closed-circuit television feed to another room in the courthouse.
As to reporting cases in the media, the practice direction also makes it clear that the courts already have powers to order that nothing should be reported that would lead to the identification of juvenile defendants, but, as now, the detail of the case and the arguments made in court should still be fully reported.
Given the Court's judgment, I have considered whether any legislative changes are needed on media attendance and reporting. I have concluded that they are not, although I know that the House will expect me to keep the implementation of the practice direction under review, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.
The practice direction requires courts to take positive steps to ensure that a juvenile defendant understands court procedure and that, where practicable, all the participants in the courtroom should be on the same level. The Government will be inviting Lord Justice Auld, in his review of the working of the criminal courts, to look in more detail at working of juvenile trials in the Crown court.
On the sentencing of juveniles convicted of murder, following a separate European Court of Human Rights decision in February 1996, which was accepted by the previous Administration, a provision in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 ended the Home Secretary's role in determining the final release date of those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure and passed that function to the parole board.
This latest European Court of Human Rights decision covers the other end of the sentencing process—the initial procedure for setting the tariff, which is the minimum period that a juvenile convicted of murder should serve in custody. Until now, that has been set by the Home Secretary of the day. However, in this case, the Court found against the United Kingdom under article 6(1), concluding that Ministers, as members of the Executive, should not set tariffs for juveniles sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Given that clear Court decision, I am bound to bring forward legislation, which will be in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill this Session, to provide for tariffs to be set by the trial judge in open court, in the same way as they are currently set for adults subject to discretionary life sentences, which apply to any offenders apart from those sentenced for murder. The tariff will be appealable either by the offender or by the Attorney-General if he believes it to be unduly lenient. I also plan to ensure that the views of the victims and their relatives are better taken into account. I shall announce our proposals in due course.
About 250 people, sentenced as juveniles, are currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, and fresh cases continue to go through the courts. For new cases, pending the necessary change in the law which I have announced,


I shall set any tariffs in line with the recommendation that the Lord Chief Justice makes to me in each case. For existing cases, I propose a fresh review of tariffs in line with the principles in the judgment. I shall be inviting representations from those whose tariffs have not yet expired.
Where no representations are received, the tariff will be set in accordance with the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice in that case. Where acceptance of the Lord Chief Justice's original recommendation would mean that the tariff had now expired, I shall refer those cases to the parole board immediately. Where the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice was higher than the tariff set by Ministers, the tariff would not be increased.
Where existing detainees wish to make representations, they can be made to the present Lord Chief Justice, who will then make a recommendation to me. I will then adopt his recommendation on what the tariff should be.
I now come to the question of the tariffs of Thompson and Venables. Part of the history of this is well known, but some of it is not. The trial judge recommended a minimum of eight years—the tariff. The then Lord Chief Justice recommended 10 years. My predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), decided in 1994 to set the tariff at 15 years. However, that tariff was quashed as unlawful by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 12 June 1997. There is, therefore, no tariff for either offender in this case at present.
The decision of the European Court and the requirements of the general law mean that I have to treat the process in this case, as in any other case, in line with the procedures that I have just outlined. Representations have already been received from Thompson and Venables: they will be referred to the Lord Chief Justice for his recommendations to be made—which, as I have explained, I am bound to accept.
I appreciate that this continuing uncertainty will be distressing to James Bulger's parents and relations in particular. I hope that the process can be concluded as quickly as possible but they, and the wider public, may take some reassurance from the fact that the tariff set is a minimum for the requirements of retribution and deterrence. An offender, once his tariff has expired, is released only if the parole board, after a very thorough consideration, is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk to the public.
The processes that I have outlined in this statement replace the tariff-setting and review arrangements for cases involving detention at Her Majesty's pleasure. Those were set out in the written answer of 10 November 1997, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) about the implementation of the House of Lords judgment in the Thompson and Venables case.
The murder of young James Bulger was horrific. It is seared into the memory not just of his family but of the public as a whole. What I have sought to do is ensure that the binding decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are implemented in a way that secures that young people who commit dreadful crimes are properly brought

to justice in an environment that is as open as possible, and that the interests of victims and their families are properly taken into account.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for that statement and for his usual courtesy in letting me have an early sight of it. I am less pleased that much of it—although not all—appeared to be widely trailed in the press and media yesterday. In a case of such seriousness, it would have been more appropriate if the statement had come first.
I join the Home Secretary in extending to the relatives of Jamie Bulger the sympathy that all hon. Members feel for them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the continual reopening of the case must have made their suffering worse. I understand that Jamie Bulger would have celebrated his 10th birthday this week. This further reopening of the case must be causing his relatives considerable distress yet again.
I also welcome the Home Secretary's statement that, in future, more account will be taken of the views of victims and their relatives.
As regards the detail of some of the right hon. Gentleman's other announcements, we will reserve our position pending further examination, but we accept that he could not have defied the ruling that he received. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman had no alternative but to comply with it.
However, that said, I am sure that the ruling will cause great disappointment and offence to many people in this country. I personally believe that 15 years was an appropriate tariff, given the severity of the crime, and that this ruling is a most unwarranted interference in a system that was working well.
The Home Secretary said that he would review tariffs, and that he would set them at the level recommended by the Lord Chief Justice. Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate—if not, perhaps he will write to me—of the number of cases in which that could involve a lower tariff? What would be the greatest reduction involved?
The Home Secretary said that, when the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice would mean that the tariff had expired, he would refer the cases to the parole board immediately. Will there be any consequences for people being detained who, under the new system, should not be detained, in terms of any legal action that might be taken, or any suits that might be made for compensation? Again, if the Home Secretary cannot give me the details now I shall be happy for him to write to me.
Will the Home Secretary now answer the questions that I asked him following his statement on 16 December, which—quite properly, given that he had reached no conclusions about his response to the judgment—he was reluctant to answer then?
Should not a tariff reflect simply the circumstances of the crime, and the penalty that is appropriate for retribution and deterrence? Does the Home Secretary agree that, in the setting of a tariff, account should not be taken of whether individuals will transfer to other parts of the prison system during their sentences? There has been considerable speculation that it was because Thompson and Venables would have to transfer into the adult system that a lower tariff was recommended to avoid their having


to do so. Does the Home Secretary agree that that should not be a relevant consideration? Does he agree that, in the setting of a tariff, the only considerations should be reflecting the circumstances of the crime, and setting a suitable time to be served to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence?
Will the Home Secretary confirm that, in 1996, the Court of Appeal upheld the Home Secretary's right to adopt the same policy for young offenders as for adults, and that the power to increase tariffs has been used hundreds of times without challenge? Will he also confirm that, notwithstanding the verdict of the Court that a fair trial was not received, it is still the case that the original verdict of guilt is unassailable, and that, even if the trial had been conducted under the new arrangements that he seeks to introduce, the result would have been the same?
Finally, may I ask the Home Secretary this? Does he not consider it an essential part of rehabilitation to accept the consequences of what one has done? Does he not agree that it is not in the interests of the perpetrators for them to regard themselves as victims of the system, and that, instead, they should regard themselves as perpetrators of an unthinkable crime? Is it not that with which they should come to terms, rather than their being encouraged to think that they have received unfair treatment?

Mr. Straw: I share the right hon. Lady's regret about the fact that the matter was widely trailed in the media. I do not suggest in any way that this was the source, but we felt it necessary to warn the representatives of the families a week ago—the family of the victim, and, of course, the legal representatives of Thompson and Venables—that a statement was likely to be made some time this week. We also warned them on Friday that the statement would probably be made today. I think it will be well understood that it would have been unconscionable to make a statement without warning the Bulger parents. I hope the House will also acknowledge that I try very hard to ensure that the House learns first of any decisions that are made.
I am glad the right hon. Lady accepts that, given the European Court's ruling, we cannot defy that ruling. She said, however, that the European Court's decision represented an unwarranted interference. What she described as an unwarranted interference arises from an entirely voluntary decision—made successively over the past 50 years, by her party as much as by mine—to accept the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and also from her party's endorsement of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European convention on human rights in British domestic law. That being so, there will be occasions when the European Court makes decisions which, individually, we do not like. I have made no secret of the fact that I did not wish the Court to make the decision in this case. It was precisely because I believed that the previous system was correct that I ensured that the United Kingdom Government vigorously defended the action that had begun under the previous Administration. However, the decision of the Court was made, and certain consequences have followed from it.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the number of people who are detained who could expect a lower tariff. I am told that there are 12 detainees with unexpired tariffs

whose recommendation from the Lord Chief Justice was higher than the tariff set by Ministers. She asked whether a court action could follow for some of those who are tariff-expired at a tariff set by the Lord Chief Justice. I do not believe that there are any grounds for claims for compensation, which I think is what the right hon. Lady had in mind. It is perfectly possible, given the ingenuity of English lawyers, that one or two may try that, and it is a matter for the courts whether they are accepted.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the way in which the tariff should be set. We shall be able to discuss that in greater detail during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. I understand her point, but in setting a tariff for juveniles, account has been taken not only of the crime and its circumstances but of the relative age of the offenders.
The right hon. Lady's last point concerned the victims of the system. Of course I accept that we should take full account, always, of the interests of the victims of crime. That is what we have been seeking to do, and I intend to bring forward proposals on that in due course.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that it will reflect no credit on anyone, either in this House or among the red-top tabloids, if they seek to turn the case of Thompson and Venables into the same kind of vendetta that is being pursued against Myra Hindley? Will he none the less make it clear, and repeat, that when the time comes for Venables and Thompson to be considered for parole, that is all that that means, and there is no automatic entitlement to release? Will he also make it clear that if and when they are released, they can be called back to prison if they reoffend or show any signs of doing so?

Mr. Straw: I am glad to have the opportunity to put that point on record. It may provide some reassurance for members of the public as well as Members of the House to know that in respect of adult lifers, whose release dates I have to determine, the majority of the cases that I consider are those of people whose tariff has expired at least a year before, and in some cases many years before. The criteria for determining release for juvenile offenders, as for adults, has to be whether it is safe to release such individuals once they have served their minimum term. Once they are released, they remain on life licence should they attempt to reoffend.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I first associate Liberal Democrat Members with the sentiments of the Home Secretary that no right-minded person could think other than that this was the most shocking crime? We continue to want to show the family of James Bulger sympathy and solidarity. One way in which we can respect their wishes is to join with the Home Secretary, across parties, to ensure that in future the law takes more account, as the right hon. Gentleman intends that it should, of victims before and after trial. We are happy to assist him in seeking to formulate a way that meets to the maximum the demand for that to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to accept the judgment. The judgment was quite right that there should be a system for trying young people that is seen to do justice to everybody, and that the setting of minimum sentence—the tariff—should be separated from political decisions and handed over to judges. That must be right, and we are happy to support that proposition.
To reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), may I ask that the minimum sentence should remain a minimum? Can the Home Secretary confirm whether defendants who have been convicted as juveniles but who are now adults will, in addition to the assessment of risk when the tariff period runs out and as part of the process, have to accept and understand the reality of what they have done, and, as it were, apologise for it? That would be right for all juveniles who are convicted, however serious their crime, because it is proper to give them the chance of a new start.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for my approach. However, there is plainly a difference between his approach and the Government's on one important point. On the merits of which system should operate, I should make it clear—as I think my statement did—that but for the ECHR's decision, which is binding on the Government, we should not have been minded to change the existing system. Given the extensive judicial supervision that already takes place of decisions made by the Secretary of State, I feel that the system was working satisfactorily and with a high level of public confidence.

Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. I remain of the view that 15 years is the minimum period for which Thompson and Venables should be detained, but I, too, accept that the Court has tied the Home Secretary's hands.
Can the Home Secretary make any sense of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wynne that it is not a breach of human rights for the Home Secretary to set a tariff in the cases of adult murderers and the decision that it is a breach of human rights for the Home Secretary to set a tariff in the case of juvenile murderers? Will he renew the efforts made by the previous Government to increase the respect shown by the ECHR for national courts, so as to ensure that it intervenes much less often in their decisions?

Mr. Straw: I find it difficult to follow a clear line of logic in the two cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. Buried in the dense text of the judgment, there is some elucidation of the point—although perhaps not much illumination. On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, I think, and the view is widely shared, that the United Kingdom has suffered from the fact that the European convention had not been incorporated into our law—paradoxically, given that the convention was drafted by English jurists—so that we have not had the margin of appreciation, as it is called, that many other countries have enjoyed.
I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about our need better to educate jurists in Strasbourg about the nature of our common law system. A fundamental problem is that most of those jurists were brought up in the Roman tradition, which differs in many respects, and which I would suggest is not a better tradition. As our courts begin to implement the

jurisprudence of Strasbourg, we shall benefit more in the future from that margin of appreciation than we could have in the past.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I deny that I am making a cheap, yah-boo point at the expense of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but should politicians, even if they are Queen's counsel, alter tariffs at all? Some of us were extremely uncomfortable about the former Home Secretary's decision, feeling that he should not have done such things. What is the view of the current Home Secretary?

Mr. Straw: My view is that the system that existed before the Court judgment was working satisfactorily. I make final decisions about the release of those sentenced to life for murder. In practice, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) makes the decisions about the setting of tariffs, except in respect of those for whom a whole life tariff may be appropriate, or in terrorist cases. The system commands public confidence; it is operated fairly. Furthermore, because the decisions are made in a quasi-judicial way, the process that is followed isrightly—the subject of intense judicial scrutiny.
I have already referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in the summer of 1997. The decision of the previous Secretary of State in respect of the 15-year tariff was quashed as unlawful. The tariff of 15 years was not quashed as unlawful; it was the process by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman achieved the decision that was quashed. However, as I recall, no judgment was made by the Court as to the merits of that tariff. That is water under the bridge as far as juveniles are concerned; the Court has made its decision—it is our job to implement it.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: In future such cases, from whom will the Home Secretary seek advice on whether the state should offer new identities to prisoners when they are at the point of release? Has the right hon. Gentleman decided to offer new identities in this case?

Mr. Straw: There are standard arrangements for the offer of new identities in exceptional cases. I can recall seeing no papers on the question of identities for the prisoners in this case.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman may know that, subject to the authority of the then Home Secretary, I was responsible for setting tariffs for two years or so. The impending legislation is an opportunity to consider the tariff-setting for adult offenders on whom a mandatory life sentence has been imposed. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my anxiety about any involvement of Ministers at all? Does he agree that there is a strong argument for leaving the question of tariffs exclusively to the courts—not to the Lord Chief Justice—subject only to the right of the Home Secretary to apply to the court for an extended order subsequently, if it appears that the offender is likely to pose a danger to the public
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider abolishing the mandatory life sentence entirely and enabling a trial judge to impose a determinate sentence?

Mr. Straw: I am completely opposed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second proposal. The regime


that has operated in this country in respect of murderers has worked satisfactorily, and has ensured public confidence. Murder is the worst possible crime in the criminal calendar. There is some connection between the exceptional care we take over the sentencing of murderers and the fact that our murder rate is one of the lowest in the western world, despite the fact that other crime rates—for acquisitive crime—are relatively high. I do not want to disturb that regime.
The fact that someone who has committed a murder is on a life licence—however long he or she may be out of custody—is extremely important in ensuring the safety of the public, and in ensuring that the person goes on to lead a law-abiding life. Happily, most such people do so. That cannot be said of the majority of those released from prison after determinate sentences.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I am not persuaded of the case that he makes—to say the least. However, I dare say that he will make that case during the Committee or Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Will the Home Secretary explain why the public reaction to the horrific child murder committed by the child Mary Bell a generation ago was apparently so much more mature and less crudely vengeful than much of the reaction has appeared to be in the case of Thompson and Venables?

Mr. Straw: I am not sure that I share the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of what happened in the Mary Bell case. The only two observations that I would make are, first, that it took place many years before the terrible murder of James Bulger, and secondly, that the parents of the victims of Mary Bell were not put through the judicial mill as the parents of James Bulger have been. Of course everyone, including prisoners, has their rights and I understand why continual court appeals have been made, but, as I said at the outset, we must all have the profoundest sympathy with the parents of James Bulger and their relatives and friends, given the constant resurfacing of the case.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In his first two and a half years as Home Secretary—until the

Court's ruling in December—on how many occasions did the Home Secretary find it necessary to change the tariff set by his predecessors?

Mr. Straw: I do not think that I ever changed a tariff, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman if that is the case.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Home Secretary agree that it was hardly fair of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—who, unfortunately, is no longer in his place—to refer to "a vendetta" by the press and the public against Myra Hindley? Surely what happens in these terrible cases is that even the popular press gets it right by reflecting the horror that the public feel when terrible murders are carried out, whether by adults or by children.
Does the Home Secretary also accept that there have been a number of cases of murders involving young people as perpetrators where the influence of violent films and videos has been directly traced, although not necessarily in this case? Given those data, will he consider reviewing the admissibility of violent content in films and videos, which takes a great part of the responsibility for depraving the moral standards of young people where crime is concerned?

Mr. Straw: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, each of us is responsible for the language that we use in the House or outside. All these terrible cases must be approached in a judicious, as well as a judicial, manner, but when approaching them in that manner we must take full account of the appalling trauma suffered by the parents and others close to victims of such crimes—distress to a degree that few of us could possibly even imagine, still less undergo—and the much wider public revulsion at the nature of such crimes.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I believe that the whole House accepts the need for proper controls of such violent and depraved videos. It will be a matter of note that the Court of Appeal is shortly to hear an appeal in which the parties will be the British Board of Film Classification and the Video Appeals Committee, concerning the powers of the BBFC in relation to that matter.

Points of Order

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that there is growing concern in the country about the marginalisation of Parliament and the inability of the House to hold the Executive to account. Could you ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry comes to the House to explain the fact that £530 million-worth of public money is to be lent under the launch aid provision to BAe Systems for the development of the Airbus 3XX? Many of us may be in support of the project—I am—but it is a huge amount of public money. I believe that it is the biggest industrial investment of loan capital of its kind in years, and we really should be able to question the rationale that gave rise to that decision.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that an opportunity will arise for the Secretary of State to be questioned, even if it is only at Trade and Industry questions. If I remember rightly, there is a written question on the Order Paper today. That, quite understandably, does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that there will be opportunities to question the Secretary of State on that issue.

Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order of which I tried to give you advance notice, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Prime Minister to make a statement about the role of Lord Levy, an unpaid diplomat and the Prime Minister's personal envoy, who is acting on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf in the negotiations to further the peace process in the middle east? I gather that there is concern in the House and among the diplomatic corps that an undrawn line may have been breached: a diplomat is performing a role on behalf of the Prime Minister, but he is not accountable to Parliament because he is not paid. In addition, he is conducting business deals while he works on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has not given me any notice of her point of order, but I am not aware that a statement is to be made on that issue today—or at any other time for that matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that fact that communications are even more difficult than in neighbouring Mozambique, has the Department for International

Development made a request to make a statement on the work that it is doing in the horrendous situation that has developed in Madagascar as a result of the cyclone?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Minister from any Department seeks to make a statement on that issue.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Given the disgraceful description of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Friday of the Army's Household Division as containing lots of "chinless wonders", have you received any sign from the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to come to the House to issue a full apology for the widespread offence that his vicious and boneheaded remarks have caused?

Madam Speaker: I am not responsible for the comments of any Secretary of State. I have not been informed that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to come before the House on such a matter.

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any indication that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is to come to the House to make a statement clarifying uncertainty over the Government's grammar schools policy? If a Secretary of State describes a previous policy statement as a joke, does he not at least owe it to the House and to the parents of Kent to come here to explain whether he will proceed with his unnecessary and divisive ballots?

Madam Speaker: All Members seeking statements need to do is to look at the annunciator screens at about midday. They announce what statements are to be made. However. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to others who are interested in these matters that they may table questions for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to answer.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any mechanism whereby we can further the purpose of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the outrageous remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and summon the right hon. Gentleman to the Chamber? If he refuses to come we could at least then express our view: so far from the targets of his wrath being "chinless wonders", he will have exposed himself to the charge of being a gutless windbag.

Madam Speaker: I fear that they are becoming bogus points of order. We have more important business with which to deal.

Orders of the Day — Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

As amended in the Committee and the Standing Committee, considered.

Ordered,
That the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: New Clauses, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 44, Schedule 4, Clauses 45 to 56, Schedule 5, Clauses 57 to 64, Schedule 6, Clause 65, Schedule 7, Clauses 66 to 72, Schedule 8, Clauses 73 to 87, Schedule 9, Clause 88, Schedule 10, Clauses 89 to 103, Schedule 11, Clause 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 111, Schedule 13, Clause 112, Schedule 14, Clause 113 to 123, Schedule 15, Clauses 124 to 128, Schedule 16, Clause 129, Schedule 17, Clause 130, Schedule 18, Clauses 131 to 138, Schedule 19, Clauses 139 to 149, Schedules 20 and 21, New Schedules.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

New Clause 1

INVOLVEMENT OF COMMISSION IN CHANGES IN ELECTORAL PROCEDURES

—(1) The Commission—

(a) may participate with any relevant local authority in the joint submission of proposals falling within section 10(1) of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (pilotschemes); and
(b) shall have such other functions in relation to—

(i) orders and schemes under section 10 of that Act, and
(ii) orders under section 11 of that Act (revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes),


as are conferred on the Commission by those sections.

(2) Where any scheme under section 10 of that Act falls to be implemented following the approval by the Secretary of State of proposals jointly submitted by the Commission and a relevant local authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above, the Commission may, in connection with the implementation of the scheme, provide that authority with such assistance (except financial assistance) as the Commission think fit.

(3) In this section "relevant local authority" has the same meaning as in section 10 of that Act.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 131.

Mr. O'Brien: New clause 1 and amendment No. 131 will extend the functions of the Electoral Commission so as to include a role in relation to pilot schemes. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 makes provision for local authorities to bring forward proposals for pilot schemes for the purpose of testing electoral innovations such as early voting and electronic voting at local government elections. Section 11 of that Act also provides for the Secretary of State, in the light of the success of such pilots, to apply such electoral innovations to local government elections generally.
It is clearly right that the Electoral Commission should have a role here. The Bill already provides the commission with a broad remit in relation to electoral law and with a role in providing advice and assistance to other authorities in relation to electoral matters. It will also have an important role in promoting public participation in the democratic process.
Those functions clearly dovetail with the rationale behind the arrangements for the conduct of pilot schemes, and it would be a serious omission not to provide the commission with a clear role. Amendment No. 131 will amend sections 10 and 11 of the Representation of the People Act so as to spell out the commission's role. New clause 1 will add to the commission's functions under part I a power to participate with a local authority in the joint submission of proposals for a pilot scheme and to provide assistance to that authority in conducting the pilot.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is there any way in which an individual or organisation can appeal if a local authority is refusing to undertake a pilot scheme in particular areas? I have it in mind that certain areas may have a heavy Labour or heavy Conservative vote. What is to stop the party that does not control the council making representations that the pilot area should be extended to other areas of the council?

Mr. O'Brien: We have not yet been able to approve pilot schemes, but we shall consult local authorities this week. The orders are being drafted, and I hope to be able to lay them before Parliament on Thursday, when we will be able to announce which pilots we are approving. We have, however, considered the provisional pilots and, where we have been informed of a substantive disagreement within various councils, such as Conservatives disagreeing with a Labour-controlled council, we have in most cases decided not to proceed with the application. I have had a few discussions through the usual channels to find out whether there are any particular problems.
At present, there are no means by which someone can introduce a proposal to extend the remit of a pilot scheme but, if the new clause is accepted, an obvious way to do so would be to ask the Electoral Commission to make the proposal and discuss it with the local authority so that, hopefully, the authority would then agree with the commission that it was worth approving the pilot.
Any scheme would then have to be fully evaluated to see whether it prevented personation and ensured that more people participated. If the Electoral Commission felt that it could endorse the scheme, it might then be rolled out nationally in local government elections only. As will become clear, our view is that any roll-out for parliamentary elections would have to be done by legislation.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister referred to UK general elections. Although we are dealing primarily here with local government, how will the legislation interface with the National Assembly for Wales, with regard to the Assembly's involvement with local government, which is obviously directly relevant, or with any wish by the Assembly to develop pilot schemes that are particularly relevant in Wales?

Mr. O'Brien: We would want to proceed with changes in the operation of electoral procedures in local government, or indeed in national Government, only after


full discussion and consultation with the Welsh Assembly and Executive. Throughout consideration of the Representation of the People Act and this Bill, which deals with the organisation of political parties, we have sought to ensure that the views of parties in the Welsh Assembly are considered. We have also had several discussions with the Executive at different stages to ensure that, although our proposals might not have universal approval, they are at least broadly supported by parties in Wales.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him about exactly how the procedures for local government elections will operate in Wales and to set out clearly how the measures will apply.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if a local authority proceeds with a pilot scheme and decides that it is beneficial but subsequently changes its mind, its initial decision would be revocable?

Mr. O'Brien: A local authority could decide to undertake a pilot scheme and undertake it, but it would then have to submit a report on the scheme and, before it was able to repeat the exercise, receive the consent of the Electoral Commission—indeed, the Home Office would have to approve the scheme. Therefore, in the sense that the local authority could not undertake another pilot scheme if we were dissatisfied with the way in which the first one was conducted, its initial decision is revocable. The fact that an authority has decided to undertake a pilot scheme once does not mean that it would be able to do so in subsequent years.

Mr. Bercow: Or would have to?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
Where the commission does not co-sponsor a pilot scheme, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the commission before making an order providing for the implementation of a pilot scheme proposed only by a local authority.
During the passage of the Representation of the People Act, several hon. Members, both here and in another place, stressed the need to provide for the independent and objective evaluation of the pilot schemes. For the first wave of pilot schemes in May, the task of evaluating such schemes will fall to the relevant local authority.
However, during debate of the Representation of the People Bill on Report in another place on 29 February, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary said that the Electoral Commission would have an important role in evaluating the operation of pilot schemes. Indeed, we envisage that, in future, such evaluation would fall to the commission. Amendment No. 131 would amend section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 to that end.
The commission would be expected to work closely with the relevant local authority, which would also be required to provide the commission with appropriate assistance in preparing the report. That assistance might, for example, take the form of seeking the views of voters, parties and electoral staff on the success of the scheme,

and of providing information on the cost of the pilot scheme. The local authority would also be required to publish the commission's report in its area.
Evaluation of the outcomes of pilot schemes leads naturally to the question of the roll-out of successful innovations to local government elections generally. Section 11(1) of the Representation of the People Act provides for successful pilots to be rolled out by order of the Secretary of State. As recommended by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place, amendment No. 135 would amend section 11(1) so that the order-making power may be exercised only on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. Our intention is that that new requirement will apply to innovations piloted this May, as well as to those successfully piloted in subsequent elections. It will therefore provide safeguards which I hope will satisfy all in the House. The new clause and amendment No. 135 will provide the independent Electoral Commission with a decisive role in the conduct, evaluation and wider application of pilot schemes.
Amendment No. 6 responds to the point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who made the case for the Electoral Commission's reports under clause 5 to be published at the same time as they were submitted to the Home Secretary. In Committee, we said that we had no difficulty with the broad thrust of his argument, but that the question of publication should be left in the hands of the Electoral Commission.
Any reports produced by the commission under the provisions of clause 5 would, in effect, constitute expert advice to the Government of the day from an independent statutory authority. The commission will have ownership of that advice, and it should rightly be for the commission to publish it in the manner that it sees fit. The amendment makes the position clear. I should add that I would fully expect the commission to publish its reports in parallel to submitting them to the Home Secretary for consideration.
Amendment No. 7 adds to the list of delegated powers in relation to elections that may be exercised only by the relevant Secretary of State after consultation with the Electoral Commission. The Representation of the People Act inserted a new section 17A into the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Subsection (3) of it contains a power to prescribe, by order, the arrangements for a free mailshot during future GLA elections. There is already a requirement, under new section 17A(6), on the Secretary of State to consult with such bodies as he considers appropriate before making an order, but it is as well to recognise the particular role that the Electoral Commission will have as the principal source of advice on electoral matters.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Government amendments show the efficacy of proper scrutiny of legislation, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House. Last week, by contrast, a guillotine was imposed on discussion of the Representation of the People Bill. The quality of legislation may suffer as a consequence of the quantity, but I hope that we shall make progress on the present Bill in the next two days.
We welcome the fact that the Government recognise the importance of the electoral process remaining untarnished by perceived or actual rigging of elections by party politicians. Amendments to the Representation of


the People Act 2000 relate to the rolling out of the Secretary of State's powers in regard to future parliamentary elections.
I am delighted that the Government have taken the initial steps on a journey that we have been enticing them to make, both in this place and in another place, but there is still some way to go. It is a journey well worth making, as I hope the Minister will agree.
On 9 February, the Select Committee on Deregulation issued a report that proposed that changes to electoral law be made in consultation with the new Electoral Commission. The Government also accepted the recommendation that other sweeping powers relating to electoral changes to parliamentary elections require primary legislation. That was enshrined in the Representation of the People Act 2000, and we thank the Government for those changes.
The Neill report in October 1998 called for the establishment of the Electoral Commission and for the commission to be given a wide remit, including the review within six months of major elections and referendums. Recommendation 72 proposes that
the Government should consult the Commission before making or proposing any changes relating to electoral law and administration.
With regard to the commission and to electoral law and administration, I have some questions about the Government's new clauses and amendments.
We have enormous reservations about the make-up of the Electoral Commission, in view of the powers that it is to be given. We know that it will comprise between five and nine members, as recommended by the Neill committee. The Neill report further recommended that the commission should include no party politicians. That is a sound recommendation. The Speaker's Committee is to be established, on which politicians will serve. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent past or present party politicians being members of the Electoral Commission, and we hope that the Government will reconsider its composition.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) will comment on the timetable for the establishment of the commission and the pilots due to take place in May. Problems may arise because of the time lapse between the pilots and the setting up of the Electoral Commission and the appointment of the chief executive.
It is important that the changes are made and seen to be made by an independent body. A number of pilots have already been approved by the Secretary of State, and the new body must be given sight of the local authority reports when the pilots take place. Can the Minister say what will happen to those reports, given the time lag? I believe that the Home Secretary told our shadow Home Secretary in a letter that the commission will be up and running in November. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. If that is the case, we hope that the reports will be made available in November.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We will use our best endeavours, but I cannot provide a complete reassurance that everything will be in place by that date. However, we are doing our best to get things moving.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. The Minister knows why we are worried about the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire will also refer to the powers of the new chief executive, who will be appointed before the chairman of the Electoral Commission.
We have other anxieties. Several pilots will be up and running throughout the country and, when the new commission is established, it will not only have the power—indeed, the obligation—to consider their efficacy, but it will have to deal with representations from several other local authorities, which want to introduce pilots next year. The Electoral Commission will thus have a lot of work in its initial stages. We want to ensure that it will be an absolute success. Will the Minister therefore explain the way in which he envisages the Electoral Commission working, and comment on the fact that it will begin its work long after the first pilot schemes have been established?
Will the Minister also confirm that the Electoral Commission may also want to investigate the London mayoral elections, or will it have no power to examine them? After the rigged referendum in Wales, the Neill committee presented important recommendations on the publication of literature by the Government. The Electoral Commission may want to consider what happened in that referendum to ensure that future referendums are not rigged. It may also want to present proposals on the London mayoral elections.
As the Minister knows, the list of pilots was made available to bodies outside the House before the House knew about them. We have received written answers about that from him, and he has given explanations at the Dispatch Box. However, in the next roll-out in 2001, the Electoral Commission and local authorities will work together, and we are keen to ensure that the House will be informed of the pilots before the Press Association or any other bodies. We should be told at least at the same time as local authorities.
Let us consider Government amendment No. 7. There has been much controversy about the literature for the Greater London Authority elections. First, we were told that it would be impossible for any free literature to be made available to the electorate. We were then told that the costs of doing that would be prohibitive. However, we are now told that it is not only possible to produce such literature, but that the costs have shrunk dramatically. A hard-fought victory for democracy was won by the unelected House of Lords.
We know why the Government were not keen initially on free mailshots for the London mayoral elections. However, they will now be provided. Even Dafydd Elis-Thomas was heard to remark in the House of Lords that politics was a funny business, and that he never thought that he would vote in the same Lobby as Margaret Thatcher in defence of Ken Livingstone.
Why do the Government wish to retain power over future mailshots? A mailshot is assured only for the first Londonwide elections. Why cannot the commission have the same powers for mailshots as it has for rolling out further reforms for pilot elections? The Secretary of State no longer has the power unilaterally to introduce changes to elections; he has to do that on the commission's recommendation.
There is a suspicion that the Government want to retain at least a reserve power to stop mailshots, and act in cahoots with a more compliant second Chamber in future.


The Minister may call me cynical, but my cynicism is bred from the stench of rigging and control freakery of which the former Soviet Union would be proud.
Will the Minister allay the House's suspicions and agree to reconsider whether the commission should introduce recommendations for future mailshots in London mayoral elections? If so, we will be reassured that the Government are not continuing to try to rig elections.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked me about the composition of the Electoral Commission. We believe that, essentially, members of the commission should be above party politics. Generally, that would mean those who were not recently actively engaged in the party political process. We would want to be sure that those who were appointed to the commission had the broad support of all the political parties in the House. We would not wish it to be thought that an attempt was being made to put in place a group of party political hacks, who might try to manipulate the situation to their own advantage. That is not the way in which the Neill report envisaged the commission operating, and it is not the way in which the Government want it to operate. I trust that we shall have the Opposition's support in ensuring that the process takes place in a way that is seen as above the fray.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will clarify the matter and then give way.
We have already discussed whether someone who had been involved in politics by standing as a candidate some time ago would be excluded from the commission. I would not necessarily exclude such a person, but it is not our intention to include him or her in the process. We do not have a particular view on who will be on the commission but, in due course, we shall be starting the examination of possible candidates. We hope that they will be of the great and good, but not too political.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that reassurance. Will the Minister therefore confirm that no current Member of the House of Lords will be eligible for membership of the commission? Given the number of hereditary peers who have left the House of Lords, does he envisage some of them being used for the commission? I hear what he says about consultation with leaders of political parties that are represented in this place by two or more Members. Will each political leader have a black ball to put against any names that come forward if he is unhappy about those people?

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that these things can be done by consensus rather than black balls. We do not want to get into black balls—that approach leads to the situation where one side blackballs, followed by the other. We want there to be a number of individuals who are seen to be above the party political fray, whom broadly everyone can accept.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether any Member of the House of Lords might be included in the process. Law Lords are able to sit in another place, and I would not

wish to exclude individuals of that calibre from the commission. We need to ensure that we have a commission with which all parties with two or more Members sitting in the House are broadly satisfied. I hope that other political parties will be able to go along with that, to ensure that the members of the commission are of a high calibre and the sort of people who can be relied upon to reach independent and fair judgments.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I am not getting very far in responding to the debate, but I shall give way.

Mr. Stunell: Perhaps I might tempt the Minister to go a little further. The debate in Committee on this matter focused not only on where potential members of the commission might come from but on where they might go. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I moved some amendments to prevent members continuing in office if they were going to take up political activity. We should have some poachers becoming gamekeepers, but not gamekeepers becoming poachers.

Mr. O'Brien: I do not envisage these people subsequently deciding to become involved in politics. I suspect that those who are likely to sit on that body would not be likely to get involved in partisan politics or to put themselves into the fray but, if they did so, questions would have to be asked about whether they would continue in that role. We would want to be very careful about the types of individual who were members of the Electoral Commission and avoid that problem arising in the first place.
Let me answer some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. In terms of the pilots, there will be a time lapse before the Electoral Commission is in place. Subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent by summer, we aim to establish the commission in November 2000, and its priority will be to put in place the arrangements for the reporting of donations and the controls on electoral campaign spending. We will therefore need to discuss with the commission the extent to which it can be involved in pilot schemes at the May 2001 elections. Any roll-out of such schemes to local government elections generally will be on the commission's recommendation.
A number of pilot schemes will be tested this year and we shall evaluate those tests, but I should be surprised if we were able to roll them out before the next election—although that would not be impossible, were there no controversy—and the time scale will probably be slightly longer. We would hope to have the Electoral Commission in place by then. We would also hope that it would be in a position at least to examine some of the possible pilots for next year. If we were to set up the commission in November, evaluation would probably have to take place in December and the time scales for the pilots for May 2001 would become very tight. We could leave the decision late, as we have done for parliamentary reasons this year, but that would not be desirable. We would like to tell the local authorities the pilots to which we had agreed before that.
The Electoral Commission's role would, to some extent, depend on its ability to deliver an evaluation. We would want it to be involved, but in the interim we would


deal with these matters by ensuring that there was proper consultation between the political parties and a way of evaluating each scheme. We would not proceed where there were serious political objections, particularly during the next year. There is lots of speculation about various things that might happen next year and we would be particularly cautious about the way in which we proceeded with pilots then.
We would be able to evaluate those schemes. If we were disposed, without any great controversy, to agree to some extension of the electoral arrangements, that would be done by affirmative order. It would be fully debated in the House. Again, it would be in no one's interests—certainly not the Government's—to put electoral arrangements that are a matter of party political dispute before the people of this country. We are trying to move forward by consensus.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Electoral Commission would consider the mayoral elections, but they might have taken place a year previously by the time it got round to holding an inquiry, and it would have to consider party donations and perhaps evaluate some of the pilots before doing so. I cannot preclude that, and there may be good reasons for making such a decision-1 do not know—but that would be essentially a matter for the commission. It seems to me that the time scale does not easily lend itself to such an inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the announcement of provisional pilots. I hope that there would be more publicity about which pilots were being considered. I have been concerned that there has not been the lead-in time to enable some Members of Parliament to be fully consulted by their local authorities because of the way in which things have been done over the year, because of delays with the Bill and because of a number of issues in respect of which authorities would introduce pilots. Indeed, I pulled at least one pilot because Members of Parliament said not only that they had not been consulted, but that they would have disagreed if they had been. We did not want to get into a controversy even if it were internal and involved one political party, as in this case, rather than inter-party.
4.45 pm
The best way to carry out these pilots is for them to be as uncontroversial as possible, so that there is broad support. We should evaluate them properly, and the House should decide in due course whether to go further. Before we proceed on a broader basis, we should consider the recommendation of the Electoral Commission.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about postage and payment for the distribution of electoral addresses for the Greater London Assembly elections. That brings us back to the debate that we had last week. The Conservatives want the distribution of their election addresses to be subsidised by the taxpayer. The Conservative party has financial problems owing to its lack of support in the country. The hon. Gentleman tries our patience by arguing that decisions on whether taxpayers' money should be spent on subsidising political parties in elections should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and given to the Electoral Commission. I am not easily convinced by that argument.
I suspect that, when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered the proposal, they will not be able to endorse it. The House has always jealously

guarded decisions on the expenditure of taxpayers' money. I suspect that most Tories would not endorse handing them over to an entirely independent and unelected body.
The Electoral Commission may, in certain circumstances, be prepared to express a view on that issue, which the House could consider seriously, but the decision on expenditure should always rest with the House.

Mr. Evans: Our view has nothing to do with the Conservative party wanting money to distribute our publications, but everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—and everyone knows that, so the Minister's point is a smokescreen. It was a hard-won victory in the other place. We are keen to ensure that the Government take the Electoral Commission's views seriously if it says that it is vital to have free postage to ensure that the electorate are fully informed of the various merits and policies of the candidates.
I understand what the Minister says about giving another body responsibility for the expenditure of taxpayers' money, but he must accept that, for the full workings of democracy, it is important that all candidates can avail themselves of the opportunity to have their publications delivered to every house in London.

Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure whether this new clause is the appropriate place to debate that issue. I was a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this was nothing to do with the Conservative party, and everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The Conservative party's advocacy of this proposal now seems to have everything to do with its support for the hon. Member for Brent, East. I suspect that Steven Norris would be a little chagrined by the hon. Gentleman's view. The Conservatives moved from supporting Lord Archer to Steven Norris, and now they are supporting the hon. Member for Brent, East. That is a surprise.
The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Conservative party advocated this measure before the hon. Member for Brent, East indicated his intention to stand as an independent candidate in the London mayoral elections. I find his suggestion that this has nothing to do with the finances of the Tory party difficult to believe. In any event, I am grateful to him for his broad support for the Government's new clauses and amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

PAYMENTS ETC. WHICH ARE (OR ARE NOT) TO BE TREATED AS DONATIONS BY PERMISSIBLE DONORS

'.—(1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this Part.

(2) Any payment out of public funds received by a registered party shall (subject to section 46(1)(a) and (b)) be regarded as a donation received by the party from a permissible donor.

(3) Any donation received by a registered party shall (if it would not otherwise fall to be so regarded) be regarded as a donation received by the party from a permissible donor if and to the extent that—

(a) the purpose of the donation is to meet qualifying costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with a visit by any member or officer of the party to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and


(b) the amount of the donation does not exceed a reasonable amount in respect of such costs.

(4) In subsection (3) "qualifying costs", in relation to any member or officer of the party, means costs relating to that person in respect of—

(a) travelling between the United Kingdom and the country or territory in question, or
(b) travelling, accommodation or subsistence while within that country or territory.

(5) Any donation received by a registered party from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the party—

(a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the party, is a permissible donor, or
(b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 15, 90 to 93, 96, 23, 97 to 100, 103 to 106, 111 and 114.

Mr. Robert Walter: I am intrigued that the Minister is not speaking to what is a large group of amendments. When we discussed the Bill in the Standing Committee, I was delighted that the Government promised to revisit on Report the two important aspects that are covered in the amendments. One concerns the international links that our various political parties have. Under the Bill as drafted, there is a danger that we may cut ourselves off from the outside world to prevent any money flowing through the international links that our parties have. It is clear that a modern political party should be able to deal with its sister parties overseas.
The second important strand deals with the power of trustees and bequests. Government amendments Nos. 15, 111 and 114 essentially seek to delete the paragraph which states that
any donation received by a registered party by way of a donation by a trustee, in his capacity as such, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.
That was at variance with Neill. Although Neill was fairly specific about blind trusts, that paragraph would have covered open trusts. Neill's recommendation 22 was that open trusts should be permitted, and it was my understanding that the Government had accepted that. Paragraph 3.37 of their White Paper states:
In recommendations 22 and 23 of their report, the Neill committee addressed the wider issue of donations to individual members of political parties or to unofficial groups within a party, as distinct from donations to political parties as such. The Government sympathises with the view that the principles of openness and accountability should apply equally to such donations.
Consider the case of a trust that was set up as a result of a bequest, the purpose of which was to donate funds for political purposes. To suggest, as the clause does, that that would not be a permissible source flies in the face of Neill and in the face of what I regard as natural justice.
I hope not to die too soon, but, if I were to leave a bequest that was managed by trustees on my part and my will said that I would like the trustees at their discretion to make occasional donations to the Conservative party, I would expect my wishes to be carried out. Subsection (4) would mean that trustees would not be able to carry out my wishes; it would not be permissible to make such a donation.
In Committee, the Opposition made it clear that we saw little purpose in banning such donations. I welcome the Government's acceptance of that, as I welcome their acceptance that international links should be preserved and that the money necessary to preserve those links should be allowed to flow.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: For my part, I welcome the direction in which the new clause is going. The discussion in Committee covered many of the points, and I echo what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has said.
One or two loose ends remain. May I ask the Minister to say something on the role of trustees of property? I have done my best to comprehend precisely what the Minister believes he has achieved in that area. I am still not sure that the Government have achieved what hon. Members want them to achieve.
I ask the Minister to say a little more about subsection (5) and how it will be applied, especially as the words used in the subsection are used in many other parts of the Bill. Broadly, however, I welcome new clause 2, and Liberal Democrat Members will support it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who have supported this group of amendments, which give effect to the prohibition on foreign and anonymous donations.
The Bill currently prevents political parties and other regulated bodies and persons from accepting donations from sources other than permissible donors. One effect of that provision is to prevent not only hon. Members, but party members and party officers from undertaking overseas visits at the expense of an overseas Government or body. That was not our direct intention. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has rightly said, it is important that we maintain our international links with parties of a similar philosophical view. Such links both add to knowledge abroad of this country, and enable us to maintain very important relationships with other countries that benefit the United Kingdom not only politically, but in many other spheres.
Hon. Members undertake many and varied overseas visits in pursuance of their proper parliamentary duties. Such visits are invaluable in promoting hon. Members' understanding of a wide variety of issues, and thereby better equip them to discharge their duties as parliamentarians. A quick glance through the Register of Members' Interests reveals visits paid for by overseas Governments, overseas territories, overseas Parliaments and a variety of political foundations, such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The main point is that, in the Bill as it stands, not all those sponsors would constitute a permissible donor.
The issue is not confined to Members of Parliament. We have had representations from the Green party and other groups about their arrangements, and they have sought the type of changes proposed in this group of


amendments. New clause 2 and the raft of amendments grouped with it are directed primarily at addressing that issue. The key provisions are in subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause, which applies to donations to political parties.
Government amendment No. 100 makes identical provisions for party members, members of associations and holders of elected office.
I very much hope that the House will accept this group of amendments. From the broad support that hon. Members have demonstrated for the provisions, it seems that they will be accepted.
A subsidiary purpose of this group of amendments is, in certain very limited cases, to allow donations from trustees. Clause 48(4)(b) currently provides that a donation received by a registered party from a trustee acting in his capacity as such is to be treated as a donation
from a person who is not a permissible donor.
That provision sits uncomfortably with clause 48(3), on donations made in the form of a bequest.
Clearly, when a person's will includes a bequest of money or property to a political party, the trustees of the will should be able to give effect to that bequest. Reckless as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) may be to want to give money to the party that he mentioned, I think that he should have every right to do so. Provided that the deceased was on the electoral register at the time of his or her death, the registered party named in the will should be able to accept the bequest.
There may be other cases in which a trustee is simply acting as an agent in passing money or property. Again, it would be legitimate for a party to accept a donation of property provided that the person on whose behalf the trustee is acting is a permissible—that is, registered—donor. In such circumstances, clause 48(7) would apply, and the trustee would be acting as an agent for another person. That other person would be recorded as the donor.
I hope that, now that those points have been dealt with, the House will be able to give strong support to the new clause and amendments in this group.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

TRANSFER TO COMMISSION OF FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND

—(1) The Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any one or more functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland (in this section referred to as "the Scottish Commission").

(2) The Commission shall make arrangements for functions transferred to them by an order under subsection (1) to be exercised by the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

(3) Where each of the functions of the Scottish Commission is transferred by an order under subsection (1), the Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the abolition of the Scottish Commission.

(4) An order under subsection (1) or (3) may include provision for the transfer to the Commission.


(a) of the staff of the Scottish Commission, and
(b) of any property, rights and liabilities to which the Scottish Commission are entitled or subject;

and an order which contains provision such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.

(5) An order under subsection (3) may include provision for the abolition of any duty in compliance with which the Scottish Commission was established or constituted.

(6) An order under this section may contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions amending, repealing or revoking enactments).

(7) Any power of the Scottish Parliament to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

(8) The expenditure of the Commission, so far as attributable to the exercise of any functions transferred by an order under subsection (1), shall be met by the Scottish Parliament.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in schedule 1, page 99, line 21, at end insert—
'or by the Scottish Parliament in pursuance of section [Transfer to Commission of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland] (8)'.
No. 141, in clause 5, page 4, line 7, after "however", insert—
'save with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly (as the case may be)'.
No. 142, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—
'(iv) local government elections in Scotland (with the consent of the Scottish Parliament); and'.
No. 143, in clause 8, page 6, line 31, at end insert—
'unless the Scottish Parliament requests otherwise'.
No. 144, in clause 11, page 8, line 16, after "Scotland", insert—
'except with the consent of the Scottish Parliament'.

Mr. Grieve: We are revisiting an issue that was touched on in Committee. There appeared to be a possible problem that the House could help to solve.
As a result of the Scotland Act 1998, all responsibility over local government in Scotland is given to the Scottish Parliament. It is for the Scottish Parliament to determine how local government is to be run, what alterations might be made to its structure and to boundaries and, in particular, how elections might be conducted. I emphasise that we have no problem with that.
However, as we looked through the Bill, it became apparent that there are many areas in which the Electoral Commission might—I emphasise that word—be of benefit to the Scottish Parliament and Executive. We are setting up a structure with responsibilities for England and for certain devolved matters in Wales. Our concern was that if the Scottish Parliament and Executive wished to avail themselves of the services of the Electoral Commission,


they should be in a position to do so. I emphasise that we are not seeking to tell the Scottish Parliament how they should go about their own business. That applies to the ability of the Electoral Commission to provide input and advice to the boundary commission. Scotland has a distinctive, small commission that deals only with local government boundaries. The services of the Electoral Commission may be wanted for that purpose.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: It may assist the hon. Gentleman to know that he does not have to convince me in principle. We are having discussions with the Scottish Executive on how to move forward. We may well be able to table amendments in another place in due course.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. I knew that the matter appeared to be of some interest to the Government when we raised it previously and I am grateful for a progress report. We were waiting for the Report stage to see how matters were progressing. In those circumstances, I do not intend to take up more of the time of the House.
Having re-read the new clause, I should emphasise that, if the boundary commission for local government matters in Scotland were subsumed into the Electoral Commission, that commission should then report to the Scottish Parliament and Executive and not here. Otherwise, there would be a suggestion that we were trying to ratchet those powers back. I flag that up because I am the first to accept that the phrasing of the new clause might be capable of improvement. Subject to those comments and to the Minister's helpful remarks, I shall ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should give the Minister an opportunity to reply before he does so.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked me for an update. 1 thought that I might not have a chance to give one.
We are considering similar proposals and we are sympathetic to the broad principles that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said on 14 February, we are discussing with the Scottish Executive whether they wish to include provisions along the lines of the new clause and associated amendments. The Scottish Parliament and Executive have said that they would welcome an order-making power exercisable by Scottish Ministers to enable the functions of the local government boundary commission for Scotland to be transferred to the Electoral Commission. They have also agreed that there should be a similar enabling power to extend, to local government elections in Scotland, with the agreement of the Scottish Executive and Parliament, the Electoral Commission's remit under clause 8(3)(a) and clause 11. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is right that the commission would then have to report to the Scottish Parliament.
In the light of this agreement, I am ready to accept in principle the new clause and amendments Nos. 140, 143 and 144. The Government will table amendments along similar lines when the Bill reaches another place.

We propose that those amendments will provide that the various functions in relation to local government boundaries and elections may be transferred to the Electoral Commission by an order made by a member of the Scottish Executive. Any such order would be subject to the equivalent of the affirmative resolution procedure in the Scottish Parliament.
I should add that we see no need for provisions along the lines of amendments Nos. 141 or 142. Under clause 8(1) the commission may, at the request of any relevant body, provide that body with advice and assistance in respect of any matter in which the commission has skill and experience. The definition of a "relevant body" in clause 8(6) includes the Scottish Parliament and Executive, and the National Assembly for Wales. It would therefore be open to the Scottish Parliament to request, for example, that the commission undertake a review of electoral law in relation to local government elections, or for the National Assembly to ask the commission to review the conduct of a poll held under section 36 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
Given that clause 8(1) essentially has the same effect as amendments Nos. 141 and 142, I am pleased that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is disposed to withdraw them.

Mr. Wigley: I am sorry to have had to rush in for this debate, which I had not expected to start so early. I am aware that the debate applies to Scotland, but the Minister has referred to Wales. Some parts of the electoral law in Wales come under the Home Office, and others come under what used to be the Welsh Office and the National Assembly. To what extent are the Minister's comments about Scotland applicable to Wales?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman will know that he has to be quick in this House, and I am pleased that he managed to get here for the debate. However, I am not sure of the focus of his question. The Government would always seek to consult the Welsh Executive and the Welsh Assembly if there were to be any change to the way that things were done in Wales. We would also hope that the Welsh Assembly would let us know how it wanted to proceed in relation to any matters with which it deals.
So far, dealing with devolved matters has proved remarkably easy. Good relationships are being developed, and plenty of discussions are being held between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Executive here in London. I hope that we will be able to ensure that the procedures that we use will be acceptable to all parties.

Mr. Wigley: I agree that, where good will exists, the system can be made to work. However, I seek some clarification from the Minister. Orders may occasionally need to be made, and I was asking about the facility that exists to enable the National Assembly for Wales to make them. Given that the local government legislation has transferred powers to the Assembly, will provisions equivalent to those that apply to Scotland be made?

Mr. O'Brien: The Government do not at present propose to transfer to the Welsh Assembly matters relating to council elections. They are not devolved matters, but there is no reason why the Welsh Assembly should not refer a matter to the Electoral Commission for


advice. I am not sure that I have got the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's point—or perhaps I have and have answered it.

Mr. Wigley: I shall try and clarify my question. On several occasions, order-making facilities have been added to Bills going through Westminster, with the result that the National Assembly is able to undertake extra functions. Will the Minister bear in mind the possibility of making such provision for Wales in future, where it seems appropriate that orders should come from the Assembly?

Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree to bear that in mind. If matters are best dealt with in Wales, it is appropriate that they are dealt with there, just as it is right that matters best dealt with here are dealt with here. There may well be occasions in the future when we will be able to act as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Grieve: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was seeking to curtail the debate. Opposition Members are usually accused of trying to spin out debate on their amendments for longer than is justified.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I note that the Scottish National party is not represented here today, and assume from that that its members felt reassured by comments that they had heard previously that the new clause would not fetter the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for giving us the Welsh dimension.
I look forward to seeing what progress has been made when the Bill eventually returns here from the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Tax relief for donations to political parties

'.—The following shall be inserted after section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 369 to 378)—

Relief for donations to political parties

379AA.—(1) Tax relief shall be available to an individual (the donor) in accordance with this section on qualifying political donations made by him of up to £500 in any year of assessment.

(2) A donation is a qualifying political donation for the purposes of this section if it is made to an eligible political party and—

(a) it takes the form of the payment of a sum of money,
(b) it is not subject to a condition as to repayment,
(c) it is not conditional on or associated with, or part of an arrangement involving, the acquisition of property by the political party, otherwise than by way of gift, from the donor or a person connected with him, and
(d) the donor is resident in the United Kingdom at the time the donation is made.

(3) For the purposes of this section a political party is an eligible political party if, at the last general election preceding the donation in question—

(a) two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or

(b) one member of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.

(4) If an individual makes a qualifying donation he shall be entitled, on making the payment, to deduct and retain out of it a sum equal to basic rate tax thereon.

(5) Where a sum is deducted under subsection (4) above the sum deducted shall be treated as income tax paid by the person to whom the payment is made.

(6) Any person by whom a qualifying donation is received shall be entitled to recover from the Board, in accordance with regulations, an amount which by virtue of subsection (5) above is treated as income tax paid by him; and any amount so recovered shall he treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts in like manner as the qualifying political donation to which it relates.

(7) The following provisions of the Management Act, namely—

(a) section 29(1)(c) (excessive relief) as it has effect apart from section 29(2) to (10) of that Act,
(b) section 30 (tax repaid in error, etc) apart from subsection (1B),
(c) section 86 (interest), and
(d) section 95 (incorrect return or accounts),

shall apply in relation to an amount which is paid to any person by the Board as an amount recoverable in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) above but to which that person is not entitled as if it were income tax which ought not to have been repaid and, where that amount was claimed by that person, as if it had been repaid as respects a chargeable period as a relief which was not due.

(8) In the application of section 86 of the Management Act by virtue of section (7) above in relation to sums due and payable by virtue of an assessment made for the whole or part of a year of assessment ('the relevant year of assessment') under section 29(1)(c) or 30 of that Act, as applied by that subsection, the relevant date—

(a) is 1 January in the relevant year of assessment in a case where the person falling within subsection (5) above has made a relevant interim claim; and
(b) in any other case is the later of the following dates, that is to say—

(i) 1 January in the relevant year of assessment; or
(ii) the date of the making of the payment by the Board which gives rise to the assessment.

(9) The Board may by regulations make provision—

(a) for the purposes of any provision of this section which relates to any matter or thing to be specified by or done in accordance with regulations;
(b) with respect to the furnishing of information by donors or recipients, including, in the case of recipients, the inspection of books, documents and other records on behalf of the Board; and
(c) generally for giving effect to this section.

(10) In this section—

'financial year' in relation to any person means a financial year of that person for the purposes of the relevant regulations;

'interim claim' means an interim claim within the meaning of the relevant regulations;

'relevant interim claim' means, in relation to an assessment made for a period coterminous with, or falling wholly within, a person's financial year, an interim claim made for a period falling wholly or partly within that financial year; and

'the relevant regulations' means regulations made under subsection (9) above.

(11) Section 839 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine whether one person is connected with another".'.—[Mr. Walter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Walter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We consider this proposal important, because it goes to the heart of our democratic process and the party system. It would introduce a tax relief at the basic rate of tax on political donations up to £500 a year. The wording is based on the mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—scheme and the charities gift aid schemes, so it has some tax precedents.
Opposition Members have never believed that we should cherry-pick the Neill recommendations. We think that, as far as possible, they should be implemented in full, and that is what the new clause would bring about. We must make what is, perhaps, a philosophical choice about whether we want our political parties to be directly funded by taxpayers—I know some hon. Members would sympathise with that view—or whether we want to implement a procedure to encourage more voluntary donations to political parties. The new clause would encourage voluntary donations.
In evidence to the Neill committee, the Conservative party said:
Rather than call for state funding we would welcome the Committee's views about how more individuals could be encouraged to donate. We note that in some countries individuals are offered tax relief for political donations, elsewhere tax credits or matching grants are provided. We believe that the Committee should give serious consideration to the practicalities of these approaches in the context of the United Kingdom's voluntary system.
The Neill committee's recommendations are set out in our new clause. It is important, in the interests of democracy, for the funding of political parties to be as broadly based as possible. The Neill report cites evidence from Germany about a system of tax relief introduced in 1974, under which the pattern of donations to political parties has changed from significantly large donations to many small ones. That is in keeping with the spirit of the new clause and, we believe, with the Bill.
The new clause is identical to a proposal tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 22 June last year in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill. It would amend section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 by inserting a new section 379AA.
Lord Neill's recommendation 38 states:
Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties.
Recommendation 39 states:
Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes.
5.15 pm
Why do we feel that it would be appropriate to include what seems to be a taxation measure in the Bill? The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) said in response to my hon. Friend's amendment to the Finance Bill being considered in Committee in June 1999:

The Government do not believe that that is the appropriate way to respond to the Neill committee, which proposed a package of recommendations that should be considered together. That is why I shall ask the Committee to reject the new clause.
The question of whether there should be tax relief for donations to political parties—and, if so, how it should operate—must be considered alongside all the proposed measures that we intend to publish in the draft Bill before the summer.
That draft Bill has now become the Bill before us. The hon. Lady went on:
We should not try to deal with this one aspect in isolation.
She continued:
It is also necessary to consider the issue of tax relief for donations to political parties alongside the review of tax relief for charitable donations—something that we are already working on with the charitable sector. It would be most unfortunate if the system appeared to be more generous in relation to smaller donations to political parties than in relation to smaller donations to charities.
The new clause takes note of that. The then Economic Secetary concluded:
I urge hon. Members to await publication of our draft Bill on donations to political parties and campaign expenditure. I hope that, in the spirit of fraternity … the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will agree to withdraw the new clause.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 June 1999; c.778.]
It is therefore the Treasury's view that the new clause should be considered as part of this Bill, not in isolation and not as part of a Finance Bill. That is why, although the new clause was tabled in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill last year, it was felt that it should be considered alongside this Bill.
As the Minister will be aware, given arguments for and against tax relief, Lord Neill concludes in favour of a system of tax relief. In his evidence to the Neill committee, Lord Razzall, the treasurer of the Liberal Democrats, saw benefit in the tax relief system. He said:
I think that as a weapon for the political parties to build up their membership base in particular … as part of that armoury as long as it was structured in a way that was designed to benefit the small donations, I wouldn't be against it.
Lord Parkinson, giving evidence on behalf of the Conservative party, said:
I think that this is a very attractive idea. I think anything that encourages people to participate in a political process, to get involved in political parties, to broaden the base of their membership is to be welcomed because I think politics is a very honourable profession and supporting a political party is a very worthwhile way of spending one's time and money.
It would be wrong to say that there were no arguments against the measure. In his evidence, the finance director of the Labour party, Mr. David Pitt-Watson, said:
Tax relief is of value only to people who pay tax—
That is true—
and where the donations given are of significant size. It would be of little value to the Labour Party, which has 400,000 members who are paying an average of £20 each to the Labour Party's coffers. It would be of enormous value to our opponents.
As well as those who give the Labour party an average of £20, many donors give much more. I say with some sadness that I know for a fact that the Labour party has more donors giving more than £5,000 than the Conservative party. I imagine that some of those donors might value a small tax concession. We are aiming not at those who give £20, nor at those who donate £5,000, but at those who want to make a contribution that is significant in their terms. I refer to those on middle


incomes who consider that making a substantial donation to a political party is a worthwhile way of spending their money.
I offer the example of my Conservative association in North Dorset, which has a successful patrons' club. Members donate £200 and are content to do so without the benefit of tax relief. We should be in a much healthier state, however, if tax relief applied, because more people might be inclined to make such a donation to the party. The Liberal Democrats would benefit, as would the Labour party.
The new clause would bring many small to medium-sized donors into the political process. It is not concerned with those who pay basic subscriptions, or with those who can write cheques for £5,000 or even £1 million. Those people will make their contributions anyway, and the tax relief on, say, £500 would be of minimal benefit to them. We want to aim for people who already make charitable donations of up to £500 using the gift aid scheme and who are encouraged to do so by the tax relief granted on their donations.
We could enable political parties to broaden the base of their finances so that they are less reliant on large donors of more than £5,000, not to mention those who can donate £1 million or more. We want the financing of political parties to become more broadly based, which was one of the major themes of the Neill report. Such a scheme would constitute a great fillip for democracy and would be of minimal cost to the Treasury. I say that advisedly, having examined the costs of other political parties and compared the figure with the cost of special advisers alone, which is a burden on the taxpayer.
This modest money measure would add an entirely appropriate new clause in the Bill, and I commend it.

Mr. John MacGregor: As I was a member of the Neill committee, which drew up the original recommendations, hon. Members will be unsurprised to know that I warmly support the new clause. We should understand from the outset the important difference between tax relief and public funding. Neill did not recommend public funding for general party political purposes, nor is there any stomach in the country for such a proposal. Tax relief, however, depends on individual donors deciding where they want their money to go and making a direct contribution accordingly.
The Neill committee took the unanimous view that tax relief should be included as part of the package. "Package" is the relevant word—the committee saw all its recommendations hanging together, and I regret that this is the major element of those recommendations so far left out of the Government's proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) correctly explained the principle behind the Neill committee's proposal. We envisaged that donations from traditional sources to political parties would drop off as a result of our recommendations. We saw tax relief as a means of ensuring that sufficient funds to serve our democratic purposes were attracted to political parties. In particular, if corporate and trade union donations to political parties drop off, making the parties more reliant on donations from wealthy individuals, it would be important to move towards small donations from many people rather than large donations from a few. In an era in which we wish to encourage many more people to

participate in our democratic political process—by and large, they must do so through political parties—we can do so by encouraging them to make financial contributions.
We have heard that the proposed tax reliefs are similar to those for charities. The House will recall that not long ago there was a leak—this time directly from the Chancellor—to the effect that the Budget would include a new charitable aid package. He gave as one of the reasons the need to encourage people to make that voluntary contribution to important parts of our national life. I believe that nothing in our national life is more important than the democratic process and the work done by political parties in that regard. If there is to be another major package of charitable aid in the Budget, this provision would be only a small addition to it.
My final point in favour of the new clause will be brief, because the matter has been debated on other occasions: the principle has already been accepted in the tax system. The Inheritance Tax Act 1984 accepted the principle of tax relief for political donations through inheritance taxes and it is now part of our fiscal law.
Several objections have been made to the new clause. The first is that it would help parties that were more likely to receive donations from richer individuals. There are three answers to that point. First, a cap of £500 is proposed. Secondly, the tax relief proposed would be at the basic rate, not at the higher rate or at the marginal rate of the individual; it would thus be the same for every donation.
The third answer relates to the argument that the new clause would favour parties that did not rely on large numbers of small donations from people on low incomes—the treasurer of the Labour party may have had that point in mind when he gave evidence to the Neill committee. However, if we consider the current donations to the Labour party, it seems unlikely that many donors are not paying tax. With personal allowances relief at a little more than £4,000, it is unlikely that many people could make a decent contribution to a political party on that amount of income. We all know—because of the frequent new Labour boast—that the Labour party now has a broad spread of membership and donors. There would be no difference between the parties as to the extent to which they benefited.

Mr. Martin Linton: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the marginal rate and the limitation on the amount of tax relief. Does he agree that he and his colleagues on the Neill committee would have been better advised to recommend a tax credit, such as the system they observed in Canada? That would ensure not only that the marginal rate was the same, but that the amount of subsidy would be the same for everyone, regardless of their rate of tax or how much they paid.

Mr. MacGregor: That is similar to our proposal. There would be a difference for those who pay no tax at all. However, as I have pointed out, few people who pay no tax would be likely to make a contribution to a political party.
We did indeed examine tax credits and we carefully considered the Canadian system. We concluded that the British tax system is not appropriate for that system. The proposal that we recommended, and which is in the


new clause, is much more relevant to the British system and has a precedent in charitable tax relief—that is why we came down on that side. We asked the Inland Revenue to consider the implications of a tax relief system and what would be most appropriate for the UK. We received a memorandum from the Revenue that made it clear that the proposed system was right for the UK. Furthermore, it would be easy to administer in the UK system. That is why we came down in favour of it.
A second objection to the new clause is that it would create a precedent for other forms of tax relief—for example, for certain lobby organisations that were allied to a political view. The answer to that objection is that the inheritance tax reliefs introduced in the 1984 Act have not been extended beyond political parties, so there is no reason why that should be regarded as a precedent for such an extension under the definition in the new clause. The definition in the new clause is the same as the one in inheritance tax legislation.
The third objection was the administrative cost of the proposal. In previous debates, the Government have tended to rely on that objection.
I believe that the administrative cost would be very light. If the scheme were operated in the way that the scheme for charitable contributions operates, it would be for the political parties to make the claim for tax relief. Therefore, from the Inland Revenue's viewpoint, very few organisations would submit applications for tax relief—far fewer than the number of charities that do so. There would be an administrative burden on political parties, and it would be for them to judge whether they wished to make applications and whether the benefits outweighed the costs, but the cost to the Inland Revenue would be much less than the cost of existing forms of charitable tax relief. Therefore, I do not believe that that objection is a strong argument against the proposal.
5.30 pm
Finally, there is the objection that there would be a small cost to pay in terms of the tax forgone—the tax relief allowed. By any calculation, that amount would be small. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset suggested that it would be less than the cost to taxpayers of special advisers. Certainly, it would not be very different from that cost. It would be entirely up to political parties to try to take the maximum advantage of the tax relief by encouraging an increasing number of people who do not currently subscribe to political parties to do so. As I have said, it is one of the main purposes of the proposal to encourage that wider participation in the political process.
I believe that the objections, which we did consider very carefully in the Neill committee, do not have sufficient force. That is why we came unanimously to the view that this proposal was a very important part of the overall package. I therefore hope that the Government, now that they have had time to consider all the arguments, will accept, either through this Bill or the Finance Bill, that this proposal is to the benefit of all political parties and does not unfairly benefit one as against another.

Mr. Stunell: I, too, support the new clause, although perhaps not with as much warmth and enthusiasm as

others have expressed. I feel that it is an important step forward. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the principle, which has been well outlined and has a pedigree that makes it worthy of support and careful consideration.
I do not want to focus my remarks on the direct advantages to political parties of this proposal. Instead, I want to discuss the overall effect that the legislation will have on the funding of political activity in this country. I shall ask the simple question, where will the money to fund political parties come from if the Bill becomes law in its present form?
Obviously, in future, overseas donations will not be made to political parties—and a good thing too, many of us believe. I and many observers believe that there will be a strong tendency for the level of commercial support for political parties to reduce. The requirements for transparency and disclosure and the need to get decisions past shareholders will tend to inhibit the inflow of money from that source. There will be a similar effect on private large donors, who may not want to be exposed to the full glare of publicity. All those changes may be beneficial—I believe that they will be—and it is quite proper for us to bring such matters out into the open and for them to be matters of public debate and public knowledge. Sponsors of party political conferences and so on will face similar inhibitions.
The Bill has one or two unintended side effects, which have been discussed in Committee elsewhere. In certain circumstances, bequests will not now be able to be fulfilled in the way that the testator wanted. There has been a limited relaxation today, which I welcome. However, in Committee I moved an amendment drawing attention to the fact that, especially in the last year or two of a person's life, it is commonplace for them to move—perhaps into residential care or to live with carers elsewhere—and no longer to appear on the register. Those people will be cut out of the situation.
Another unintended consequence of the Bill as it stands relates to the complexity of accounting for even quite small donations. It is quite proper and appropriate that the Bill should require such accounting, but I point out to the Minister that every one of the things that I have mentioned will result in less money coming into the province of voluntary support for political parties in this country.
Neill certainly believed that it was appropriate to give incentives to broaden the financial base on which political parties operate. I can probably speak from a fairly neutral viewpoint because, at the moment, the Liberal Democrats are supported almost exclusively by small donations. I regret that—I wish that we received large donations, but we do not seem able to attract them. I do not know whether my party would benefit from the proposal.
The proposal's value is not that it would necessarily create a broader base for a political party. I doubt that whole categories of people want to donate to a political party, but are just waiting for tax relief to become available so that they can do so. Providing tax relief is a means of enhancing income from what is probably a static base of donors. Nevertheless, tax relief would be welcome.
The proposal is not about encouraging participation, but about encouraging activity. What do the Government think would happen if, as a result of the Bill becoming law, political parties had less to spend on campaigning


and on getting people elected? Would that be likely to increase the turnout and the level of political competition? Would that be likely to develop and extend democracy, or would it, on the whole, lead to more apathy and less interest, with politicians and political parties having less impact on the communities that they try to serve?
Although my support for the new clause is not as warm and enthusiastic as that of other hon. Members, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill—deliberately in some cases and accidentally in others—will result in less money being available to political parties. That means less political activity, which is not good for the body politic in this country. If that happens, surely the Government must consider a countervailing mechanism that would allow political parties, in a legitimate, fair and transparent way, to conduct the activity that we are all quite good at, which is campaigning and motivating electors to support us.

Mr. Martin Bell: I shall speak briefly on behalf of the Independents in the House. As we have just doubled our number, I think that we have a contribution to make.
I have a slightly questionable declaration of interest to make. My cousin is a prominent member of the constituency association of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I do not want her to bankrupt herself raising money for that association.
Small contributions, with tax relief, would be entirely appropriate. If there is a flaw in the Bill—and there is a flaw—it is the high ceiling of £19.77 million that the main parties will be allowed to raise and spend at the next election. They will spend more money than they can safely raise and, in their different ways, the Ecclestone and the Ashcroft cases have reminded us of that. It would be infinitely preferable if contributions were made to parties and, in exceptional cases, to non-parties, such as my own, with tax relief. That would encourage the little people to get involved in politics, which would help our democracy and make it much healthier.

Mr. Robert Syms: I am pleased to support new clause 4, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).
The Neill committee report was a job well done. I was very surprised that the Government did not take up the proposals for tax relief. Everyone in the House realises that the days of large donors and, perhaps, of trade unions donating as much as they did in the past are over. If political parties want to thrive, they must get many more people donating reasonable sums of money. I am thinking in terms of hundreds of pounds rather than the £15 or £20 that they receive from ordinary party members. We all realise that that is the future.
The new clause would set a cultural environment in which people would think that it was a good thing to donate to political parties. Tax relief would provide a seal of public acceptance. In our current culture, it is fine to give £20, but if one gives a large donation, people think that there is something wrong or that one is in it for something. New clause 4 would change the culture of our political process.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a good point: most of us regard £20 million as a lot of money. All political parties face a hard task in raising that amount. We all know of the pressure to spend in the run-up to

elections and the campaign itself and to worry about raising the money another day, and all of us in politics will try to take a shortcut if we can, provided that it is legal. Tax relief would make a great difference.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) eloquently made the case for tax relief. A greater number of donors to all political parties would greatly improve our political process. The new clause is well drafted and contains safeguards, such as a political party having to have two Members and 150,000 votes. That would accommodate Independent Members if they formed, in effect, a political party.
Even if the Government reject the new clause today, I urge them to return to the issue in future legislation. We have heard the case for special advisers, and we could consider other services on which a lot of money is spent. As my right hon. Friend said, this is not public funding, although there would be some cost to the Exchequer. A man or woman will make a personal decision to give money to a political party, and the state will give that decision its seal of approval. That is a good, healthy and honourable action, and it would lead to a much better political process.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who opened the debate, said that the new clause is important to him, but is it a priority for the people of this country for us to give tax relief on support for political parties? I suspect that they would rather we spent the money that is available directly on health or education or on tax relief such as allowances for children or lone parents, individual allowances or business allowances.
We have calculated that the proposal would effectively cost the Exchequer about £5 billion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Billion?"] I apologise—I mean £5 million. That is £5 million of taxpayers' money that would go to political parties, but which could be spent in more desirable ways. The people of this country would not support that approach.

Mr. MacGregor: If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he wants to rest it on the basis of putting the question to the people of this country, does he not think that they would feel exactly the same about the big increases in funding for special advisers?

Mr. O'Brien: Special advisers are a different issue. That is a question of whether Ministers should have advice from someone who is able to support them through contact with their local party and the people who elected them. A Minister making a decision therefore has not only the civil service view but an independent view from someone who has a different political perspective. That ensures good decision making and is effective expenditure of public money. It enables Ministers to hear more than one point of view and therefore to reach better judgments.
We are talking about entirely different matters. I would certainly have no qualms about supporting the need for at least some expenditure on political advisers to Secretaries of State. That is well worth while and pays dividends to the public in efficiency and good-quality decisions. It is entirely different to subsidise—as we are being asked to do—unelected officers and full-time officials of political parties. I do not accept that that is a good way in which to spend taxpayers' money.
5.45 pm
The Government have sought to implement the Neill committee's recommendations as a package, as the committee intended, but we are not persuaded of the case for tax relief on political donations, as the new clause proposes. Last week, the Conservatives sought aid for their candidates' leaflets; earlier, they were seeking further aid for that. This week, they want subsidies for the salaries of Conservative party officials. Public declarations by the Conservative party of opposition to state subsidies are being replaced by constant moves to secure more and more of them.
The Liberal Democrats have always been entirely consistent in favouring state funding of political parties. The Conservative party has always said that it is opposed to such funding, but time and again in recent weeks Conservative Members have demanded in the House that the taxpayer should subsidise their politics. We are not convinced that that would be good expenditure of public money, and there are several reasons why.
The Government acknowledge the desirability of broadening the base of contributors to political parties. In placing a ceiling on political parties' expenditure, the Bill will do much to reduce their need to seek large donations from wealthy individual donors. The Government have also increased the amount of public money made available to opposition parties in order to fulfil their role in Parliament. The Bill will also provide for the disbursement of up to £2 million in policy development grants to political parties. Now, the Conservative party says, "Give us another large amount"—whether it be £5 million or not.
Against that background, we remain unpersuaded of the case for tax relief on donations. As the Government stated in their White Paper, we believe that such a scheme would amount to state aid by another route. Indeed, loss of revenue has been estimated to be between £4 million and £5 million. That must be considered in the light of our other expenditure priorities. I am not convinced that political parties are, in the broader scheme of things, a spending priority. Nor would it be desirable for them to become increasingly dependent on, in effect, public funding of their activities outside Parliament.
I recognise that the new clause would give effect to one of the Neill committee's recommendations—the Government have sought wherever possible to adhere to its recommendations—but this is one issue on which the Government have concluded that we must depart from such recommendations. That is because we do not agree with it; we are unpersuaded of the need for it.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the Bill might result in fewer foreign donations, with which he would be pleased, and in fewer company donations, which to some extent he accepts. That might result in less of an arms race on funding. The new clause would fuel that arms race.
The views on these matters of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) carry a great deal of weight because they particularly concern him and were some of the reasons why he stood for Parliament. He wanted to ensure improvement in the funding of political parties and the integrity of the political process. However, such tax relief would simply fuel the funding race that he fears the Bill will not control sufficiently.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that he thought that the future lay in getting hundreds of political party members to make contributions of hundreds of pounds. There may be members of his political association who are able to contribute hundreds of pounds a year, but I can think of very few members of my political party who could contribute £100, never mind several hundred pounds, to the Labour party. The way in which—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), from a sedentary position, is starting to bandy about the names of certain individuals. We could both do that. He should be a little careful about mixing it. We could both mix it, more toughly than he intends.
I shall deal with a more sensible comment from the hon. Member for Poole. There is a difference in wealth between individuals who might comprise particular political associations or parties. There would therefore be a disproportionate advantage to one political party compared with another or, I suspect, most of the others.
I understand why the Conservatives have proposed the measure—they would benefit from it. They would get more public subsidy and probably more donations. However, I fail to see the public interest; indeed, I am not satisfied that there is a public interest. I am not satisfied that this is a purpose for which taxpayers in my constituency would want reliefs to be granted. Neither I nor the Government are prepared to recommend the new clause.

Mr. Walter: Until we heard the Minister's contribution, I thought that a considerable consensus on our new clause was building up in the House.
I am grateful for the valuable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was a member of the Neill committee, as he pointed out. Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I regret that my right hon. Friend is not standing at the next election, and that we will not benefit from his contribution after that.
My right hon. Friend summed up exceedingly well the basis of the Neill recommendations. As he said, the new clause is not a charter for those who write out large cheques. It states clearly that donations would be capped at £500 and relief would be granted at the basic rate of income tax. It would answer what my right hon. Friend considered spurious objections from the Labour party. Few donors to any political party are below the tax threshold, so donors to all parties are taxpayers. My right hon. Friend stated that Labour would benefit from the measure.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, because of the way in which our new clause is phrased, the administrative burden would fall on the political parties. It would not be a requirement on each taxpayer to reclaim the tax. Claims for tax relief would be made by the small number of political parties when they made their returns to the Inland Revenue. The administrative burden would fall not on the various inspectors of taxes, but on the party treasurers. In any case, the amount of tax forgone by the Treasury would be quite small.
I was grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) posed the question of where the money would come from to fund the political process in the


future, as several categories of donors to our political parties are excluded by the Bill. He asked who would replace the overseas donors who could no longer contribute, the corporate donors who might in future have difficulty getting shareholder approval for their donations, and the large donors who valued their present state of anonymity but whose names would have to be published if they wrote cheques for more than £5,000. The hon. Gentleman's view was that the parties would have less money at their disposal, so an incentive scheme such as the one proposed would be of value to all political parties.
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). We all applaud his championing of the cause of the little people in politics. The measure is designed to govern the financing of political parties, so as an Independent, the hon. Gentleman unfortunately would not benefit from the provisions of the new clause. The Bill is quite specific in its definition of an "Independent".
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke of the change in the cultural environment that would be brought about by the Bill. He argued that through legislation, we should make people aware that it was socially acceptable to give slightly larger sums to political parties—sums up to £500—in the same way as it is socially acceptable to give larger donations to charities, up to the same level. He thought that that should be encouraged by our political process.
Finally, we heard the contribution from the Minister, who at the beginning had difficulty distinguishing his billions from his millions. I can reassure him that the figure that he was looking for was £5 million, not £5 billion. He later qualified that as £4 million to £5 million. In the context of Government expenditure, £5 million is quite small beer, considering the incentive effect of the new clause. We are discussing the incentive effect for parliamentary democracy, not state subsidies for political parties.
The Minister accepts that we need to broaden the base of support for our political parties, but he believes that capping at just under £20 million the sum that a large political party can spend in a general election would broaden the base of our democracy.
The Minister was entirely wrong about one thing: the new clause may have been tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are all members of the Conservative party, but it is not a recommendation of the Conservative party alone; it is a recommendation of the Neill committee.
Neill's recommendation 38 states:
Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties.
Neill's recommendation 39 goes on:
Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes.
The Government must not cherry-pick the Neill report, which arose from an independent inquiry and is broadly supported in the House and very much supported in the country. The report is designed to bring a new level of financial propriety into our political process, and transparency into our political operations. Underlying the report is the view that we should broaden the base of political support and encourage more people to participate

in the political process, not just by voting at elections but by contributing to our political parties. If the Government do not accept the new clause, we will press the motion to a Division.

6 pm

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 272.

Division No. 102]
[6 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hammond, Philip


Allan, Richard
Hawkins, Nick


Amess, David
Hayes, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heald, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Horam, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Brady, Graham
Key, Robert


Brake, Tom
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brazier, Julian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Letwin, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Butterfill, John
Lidington, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clappison, James
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Collins, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cotter, Brian
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Madel, Sir David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Evans, Nigel
May, Mrs Theresa


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Norman, Archie


Fallon, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Feam, Ronnie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Flight, Howard
Ottaway, Richard


Forsythe, Clifford
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Rendel, David


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Greenway, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Grieve, Dominic
Sanders, Adrian


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard






Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wardle, Charles


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael
Webb, Steve


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Streeter Gary
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stunell, Andrew
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Swayne, Desmond
Willetts, David



Wilshire, David


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Peter Luff and


Walter, Robert
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Austin, John
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beard, Nigel



Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dean, Mrs Janet


Begg, Miss Anne
Dobbin, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Donohoe, Brian H


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Drew, David


Benton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Best, Harold
Edwards, Huw


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blizzard, Bob
Ennis, Jeff


Borrow, David
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Browne, Desmond
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cann, Jamie
Godsiff, Roger


Casale, Roger
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cawsey, Ian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Gunnell, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Hepburn, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Crausby, David
Hood, Jimmy





Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Lindsay
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Hurst, Alan
Perham, Ms Linda


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pike, Peter L


Illsley, Eric
Plaskitt, James


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Purchase, Ken


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rowlands, Ted


Kemp, Fraser
Roy, Frank


Khabra, Piara S
Ruane, Chris


Kidney, David
Ruddock, Joan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lepper, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Leslie, Christopher
Sedgemore, Brian


Levitt, Tom
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Lock, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McCabe, Steve



McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Southworth, Ms Helen


McDonnell, John
Spellar, John


McFall, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McIsaac, Shona
Steinberg, Gerry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stevenson, George


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


MacShane, Denis
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mactaggart, Fiona
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McWalter, Tony
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


McWilliam, John
Stringer, Graham


Mallaber, Judy
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael



Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Miller, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Austin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Moffatt, Laura
Timms, Stephen


Moran, Ms Margaret
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Todd, Mark


Morley, Elliot
Touhig, Don


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mountford, Kali
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tynan, Bill


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Walley, Ms Joan


Norris, Dan
Ward, Ms Claire






Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Audrey


Watts, David
Wood, Mike


White, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Winnick, David
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF OVERSEAS VOTERS

'.—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In subsection (3) of section 1 (Extension of parliamentary franchise) leave out paragraph (c) and after paragraph (d) insert the words "and

(dd) he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year.".

(3) For subsection (4)(a) of section 1 (Extension of parliamentary franchise) substitute—

"(a) he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year,".'.—[Mr. Linton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Linton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6—Annual registration for overseas voters: peers—

'.—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In subsection (3) of section 3 (Extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections) for paragraph (c) substitute—
(c) either that entry in the register was in force at any time falling within the period of 20 years ending immediately before the relevant date, or he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year,

(3) In subsection (4) of section 3 (Extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections) for paragraph (a) substitute—
(a) either he was last resident in the United Kingdom within the period of 20 years ending immediately before the relevant date, or he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year".'.

New clause 7—Extension of franchise for employees of international organisations—
'.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 14 (Service qualification) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In paragraph (c) the words "or an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member" are inserted after the words "British Council".
(3) After paragraph (e) the words "(f) is a person under the age of 25 who is resident with a parent qualifying under any paragraph (a) to (e) above," are inserted.'.

New clause 8—Representation of the People Act 1985—
'(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended as follows.
(2) after subsection (5) of section 1 add:
(6)(a) Any person who was registered as an elector under this section at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date that he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and who registers in each succeeding year, shall be entitled to vote for the purposes of this section notwithstanding the fact that the period of time referred to in subsection 3(c) or subsection 4(a), as the case may be, has expired, provided that he satisfies the other relevant requirements of this section.
(b) In respect of any person who by reason only of his age was incapable of being included in any register of parliamentary electors in force on the last day on which he was resident in the United Kingdom, the period of five years referred to in subsection (a) shall be taken as commencing on the day he ceased to be incapable of being so included by reason of his age.".
(3) After subsection (9) of section 3 add:
(10)(a) Any person who was registered as an elector under this section at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date that he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and who registers in each succeeding year, shall be entitled to vote for the purposes of this section notwithstanding the fact that the period of time referred to in subsection 3(c) or subsection 4(a), as the case may be, has expired, provided that he satisfies the other relevant requirements of this section.
(b) In respect of any person who by reason only of his age was incapable of being included in any register of local government electors in force on the last day on which he was resident in the United Kingdom, the period of five years referred to in subsection (a) shall be taken as commencing on the day he ceased to be incapable Of being so included by reason of his age.".'.

Amendment No. 139, in clause 132, page 84, line 32, leave out "10" and insert "5".

Amendment No. 180, in page 84, line 32, at end add
', except for employees of approved international institutions, where for "20 years" there shall be substituted "the whole of their period of employment with an approved international institution".
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) an approved international institution shall be any organisation set up pursuant to any treaty or convention of which the United Kingdom is for the time being a signatory.'.
Amendment No. 176, in page 84, line 32, at end add—
'(2) The substitution of "10 years" for "20 years" in subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of any person who, on the coming into force of this section, was registered as an overseas elector and who continues to register in each succeeding year.'.

Mr. Linton: I have moved the new clause, with which we shall consider other new clauses and amendments, because I believe that we still do not have a fully satisfactory compromise on overseas voting. The Government have effectively split the difference between 20 years, which is the current law, and nil, which was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others in our original debate on the matter, and argued for cogently.
New clauses 5 and 6 follow a different approach. They would reduce the qualifying period to five years and allow people who have claimed registration to continue claiming it every year. Different people approach the issue from different standpoints. Some take a liberal attitude and argue that anyone with a United Kingdom passport should be able to vote in a UK election regardless of where they


live, of whether they pay tax, of how long they have lived where they live or of whether they have any other passport.
Others look for a more disciplined approach, including a commitment to the country in which someone wishes to vote. Other considerations are where people live and where they pay tax. Those who take that approach are opposed to giving votes to people who are effectively tax exiles, who have moved abroad to avoid paying tax in the UK. I have much sympathy with that second point of view, but I think that new clauses 5 and 6 represent a happy compromise.
I pay tribute to the constructive way in which international organisations of all the parties have approached the issue. I find their arguments persuasive, and I think that those who live abroad deserve some certainty in their lives. There was no overseas vote until 1985. There was a five-year requirement until 1989, when it became 20 years. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has called for the requirement to be reduced to five years, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggests 10 years. Those living abroad would be within their rights if they complained that the situation was confused.
Anyone who has lived in a foreign capital, as I have, knows that there are many British expatriates who do not work for the British embassy, for the British Council or for an international body, and who are not married to foreigners. Those people happen to live abroad but they remain completely British in their outlook and sense of identity. If such people live in the European Union, the Maastricht treaty guarantees them the right to vote in local and European elections and to stand as candidates, just as European citizens in this country can vote in local and European elections here.
The Maastricht treaty applies only to local and European elections. As for national elections, it is assumed that people vote in the country of which they are a citizen. On that basis, it is fair to say that if a British national is living in a European Union capital, it is only right that they should have the chance to keep their vote. It is true that German, French, Spanish, Italian and Swedish citizens can keep their vote in national elections in their home country.
The "use it or lose it" nature of the concession ensures that it will not be used by the half-hearted, by tax exiles, by dual nationals or by the rootless: it will be used and appreciated by those for whom it is intended—those who wish to maintain a strong commitment to the UK while they live abroad.
New clause 7 would give automatic voting rights to those who work abroad for international organisations. It has nothing to do with whether they have lived in a certain place for five, 10 or 20 years. It will only affect people who work for organisations of which the UK is a member state. There have always been provisions for diplomats to vote abroad. There has long been a service vote, and more recently the staff of the British Council have been given the vote abroad. The foreign service vote has been extended to the civil service. I do not think that anyone would dispute that there is a strong case for extending the concession to those who work for the European Union.
Many people will have received a letter from four British officials of the EU, who I think have made the case very well. They give three reasons why they think that they should have an automatic right to a vote in UK elections. First, they say that they are public servants, working to serve the public in Britain as well as in other member states. Secondly, they say that they work for a transnational organisation of which Britain is a member and which represents Britain's interests. Thirdly, they argue that it is Government policy to try to increase the representation of British nationals in Brussels, on the basis that it is in the national interest to have as many British nationals as possible working in the EU so that its institutions can better reflect our culture and attitudes. They conclude by saying that they believe that their aim is reinforced by the need to ensure that those working inside EU institutions retain their connection with Britain, and that disfranchisement severs the link with British political life and risks weakening their ties.
The demands of justice and of national interest do not always coincide so completely, but here we have justice represented by the call for equal treatment with domestic civil servants and the argument that it is in our national interest that those officials should retain a strong sense of British identity once they work in the EU. Not to make a concession to their case would not only be unjust but counter-productive, leaving them not only disfranchised but disenchanted. Many have accepted jobs since 1989 expecting their voting rights to be safeguarded for 20 years and, indeed, many may have been recruited on that understanding.
The only hesitation that I can imagine holding the Minister back from agreement is whether there is any confusion surrounding the definition of an international organisation, but new clause 7 states that such an organisation is one
of which the United Kingdom is a member …
That clearly includes not only the EU institutions, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the United Nations and all its daughter organisations, the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and so on.
We have come a long way from the days when Britain's only representatives abroad were diplomats and soldiers: in these days of globalisation, it is time we recognised that far more people fly the flag in other countries. They are not asking much when they say that, if they are to represent the interests of this country abroad, they would like to be guaranteed a say in how it is run. Increasingly, the political discourse in this country is about globalisation, and more and more people, as part of their careers in this country, work in other countries for extended periods. That is most obvious in Paris, Geneva, Rome and New York, but it takes place across the EU and farther afield.
There are two sound reasons for accepting the new clause and extending the rights of overseas voters. The first is a simple recognition of the way the world is moving, and the second is political—a right, once granted, is difficult to remove. By depriving a small number of people of the automatic right to vote, we shall make completely unnecessary enemies. Annual registration serves, in practice, as a tough test of people's commitment to this country, by testing their determination to vote.
I am appealing to hon. Members on both sides of the House. International organisations representing our three parties have already reached a high degree of consensus.


They have agreed the form of the "use it or lose it" new clause and the international organisation new clause, and it would be a good thing if their representatives in the Chamber also reached agreement. If we can show the Government that there is broad consensus not only among our parties' international organisations but among Members of the House, we may hear the Minister say that he is prepared to reconsider.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I hear what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) says about seeking a consensual approach and about the possibility of deals being done. We look to the Minister. I complimented the Labour party on taking some steps on the journey that we wish it to make, and feel that it could go a little further in this regard: the Government have to take a few more steps.
Our amendment and new clause would correct the ignorance, prejudice and lack of consultation that have shrouded the whole overseas voter issue, and I hope that overseas voters will achieve some justice in an otherwise squalid measure. It would be far better if the Government dropped all this nonsense now, undertook a comprehensive consultation on their proposals and introduced sensible and fully thought through measures. That would be the best option on overseas voters. [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) trying to intervene? There has been no consultation. I am bemused as to why speed is a necessity and why the consultation could not have taken place before measures were introduced. Why it all has to be so hurried, I simply do not know.
As the Minister knows, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary on 25 November 1999 to say that she opposed these measures because there had been no full consultation. Let us bring some sense to what the Government are attempting to do. We have tabled new clause 8 and amendment No. 176. The Government have in mind the picture of a number of people who fled Britain and have little interest in this country—except that they have the ability to vote in our general elections every five years or so. That is an old-fashioned idea, and certainly one that cannot sit easily with new Labour. I do not want glibly to pass over the fact that the Bill takes the right to vote in British elections away from a number of people. We are trying to temper that, as the vote will otherwise be removed without consultation.
We have heard all the arguments about whether there should be a cut-off of five, 10 or 20 years, or no limit at all. Some were rehearsed in Committee. If the Government are intent on introducing a Bill that would deny the vote to people who are currently able to vote, that is completely wrong. I hope that they will listen to what we have to say. I listened to the hon. Member for Battersea, and believe that his new clauses go some way in the right direction. People may have to go abroad for all sorts of reasons—I shall come to that later—and I see merit in dropping the figure to perhaps five years and allowing them to keep their vote provided that they show sufficient and continuous interest in what is going on in this country to go out of their way to register every year. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's new clauses are sufficient to meet the demands that we make in new clause 8—nor is the job description wide enough. We could go a little further.
The 10-year argument baffles me. We hear that 10 years is the compromise figure, but it is not a compromise between what we want, what the right hon. Member for Gorton wants and what the people who will lose the vote want. I hope that the Government can cut through the political agenda on this issue and introduce a more sensible measure. The new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea are insufficient because this country operates globally. The hon. Gentleman listed a number of organisations with which we are involved. We have also signed up to a number of international obligations and, moreover, British people work throughout the world. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the European Union and European institutions. Like other Members of the House, we received a letter from an individual, who also sent a copy to The Guardian. It would be completely wrong if people working on behalf of this country fell foul of the Bill. We must consider the fact that people who work in a global economy and who may be sent abroad suddenly, for whatever reason, to work in the commercial sector on behalf of their companies will run the risk of losing their vote after 10 years.
6.30 pm
The way things are going, people may go abroad and work for a company for five years and then be moved to another part of the world without coming back to the United Kingdom. They may have every intention of returning to the UK at some point, and may do so at a later stage when their company decides that it is right for them to come back. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has Vauxhall in his constituency, which is a global company and has plants throughout the world. Some of his constituents may be sent abroad.

Mr. Andrew Miller: No.

Mr. Evans: Employees of companies like Vauxhall may be sent abroad for some years. I believe that the five-year limit for public institutions or organisations with which we have signed treaty obligations is not sufficient. We must extend the provision to the commercial sector. It would be a big advance if the Minister considered that proposal.
New clause 8 deals with youngsters who go abroad with their parents and then fall foul of this legislation. This matter was dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Miller: We wrote it.

Mr. Evans: Indeed, so Labour Members should support it. Many of our suggestions are common-sense measures which Back Benchers have proposed, so I hope that the Government will consider them. We want people aged 16 or 17 who are taken abroad and turn 18 while they are there to be able to register, and to vote in elections. We are trying to encourage as many young people as possible to vote. The thrust of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which was passed last week, was to encourage people to vote. It would help if the Government considered that anomaly more closely.
Amendment No. 176 deals with the retrospective element.

Mr. Bercow: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that there is a curious tension in the thinking of a number of


right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches? They seem anxious to do absolutely everything they can to assist certain persons, some of whom are too lazy to make any significant effort to vote and should apparently be assisted by the facility of pressing a button. However, they regard with hostility the people who have the sheer audacity, in pursuit of their commercial obligations, to go abroad to work when requested to do so. Is that not a curious—one might even say, troglodyte—view of the world?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend speaks far better than I. He is better educated and able to come up with words like troglodyte, which I shall ensure is included in many of my speeches in future. He is absolutely right. It is ironical that the Representation of the People Act gives the vote to some people in mental institutions, which we agreed with and supported, and to remand prisoners, who may be on remand for various crimes. We thought that it was right to give them the vote as they have not gone before the courts, sentence has not been passed and they have not been convicted of any crime.
My hon. Friend has encouraged me to consider amendment No. 139 tabled by the right hon. Member for Gorton. We are considering the proposal to take away the vote after five years: that is when the cruel guillotine will fall on those people, irrespective of the fact that they are in parts of the world earning money, possibly earning profits for this country, and paying tax in this country. I look forward to hearing what the right hon. Member for Gorton has to say as he tries to twist the knife even further into that group of people, who are doing this country a great service. That is wholly wrong. My only hope is that the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench treat his suggestions with as much disdain as I do, and as would the vast majority of people in this country.
I have studied the Liberal Democrat amendments and amendment No. 180. Although we have some sympathy with them, they do not go far enough on the job descriptions. The hon. Member for Battersea wants a consensual approach. I hope that the Minister can give us some hope and assurance that some ground can be made on the issue of overseas voters. I do not believe that we should proceed with a measure out of spite and vindictiveness. It will remove the vote from many people who would wish to contribute to democracy in this country. We shall listen carefully to the Minister's comments before we decide whether to press our amendments to a vote.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I intended to be rather gentle with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) until he accused me of disdain and heightened the temperature of this gentle and good-natured debate. Like his party, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the historical perspective of the franchise. He talks about taking votes away from people as though that was utterly unprecedented. The Attlee Government of 1945 rightly abolished the business vote and the university vote. They were perfectly right to abolish fancy franchises. We got on quite well with the extension of the franchise—the Wilson Government extended it to 18-year-olds—until the Conservative Government introduced a new fancy franchise.
The hon. Gentleman talks about lack of consultation and squalor, but he should look back to what happened when this franchise was introduced. I have reminded the House on a number of occasions that I was there. The very idea that there was consultation is an extraordinary sick joke. There was no consultation whatever. We had a serious disagreement when Leon Brittan decided to invent this franchise to benefit his own party. There was no attempt at consensus. It was a unilateral act by the Conservative party.
The Conservatives wanted to increase the period to 25 years when my right honourable and noble Friend Lord Hattersley was in charge of these matters for the Labour party. They now say that there was consensus because the present Secretary of State for Social Security had been ready to settle for 20 years rather than 25. There was not: we were making the best of a bad job on a franchise that ought never to have been introduced. It was introduced against the wishes of the then principal Opposition party—which was a lot bigger than the present one—to suit the interests of the Conservative Government. We should be clear about the historical context in which this franchise was arranged.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a political agenda. Unfortunately, the Government have less of a political agenda than I would like them to have. The Conservative party has the agenda. Having read the report of the Committee stage, I understand that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I would go along with them without any difficulty. To provide the right to a franchise for servants of this country overseas is an act of justice. It is a principle that servants of this country overseas are given a vote, whether they are diplomats or members of the armed forces. My hon. Friend's proposal fits in with that.

Mr. Grieve: Persons who go abroad to serve international organisations—I have previously given the example of a person known to me—do not necessarily come back to this country afterwards. How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with the principles that he is trying to enunciate?

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea are too generous, I am ready to accept his strictures. When the Select Committee on National Heritage, as it then was, went to Barcelona, we found that our consul general intended to retire to that place. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, if that were his choice, he should not have the vote any more, I agree. I thank him for being so acute in his political perception.

Mr. Grieve: It might be possible to argue that it should go the other way—that the distinctions that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce between people working for international organisations and people who are abroad for business reasons are non-existent and that one should simply accept that those who wish to have the franchise when they are abroad should be allowed to have it.

Mr. Kaufman: I was not trying to introduce any distinctions whatever. I was commenting on what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had proposed.


My amendment is the purest, most straightforward and most logical amendment that anyone could possibly table. It changes one figure for another with no exemptions. I was saying that, because I am flexible, good-natured, helpful and basically wish good will to most of my fellow men, I am ready to entertain the principle on which my hon. Friend was operating, but my amendment is clear.
I come—I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me—to an area where I disagree with him. Commendably, he has thought a great deal before introducing the "use it or lose it" concept, but that concept entrenches still further what I object to most about that franchise: it is a voluntary franchise, not a voluntary exercise of the franchise, which should be available to any citizen in a democracy. People choose whether to have it.
All the rest of us in this country are committing an offence if we do not register to vote. We do not have to vote once we have registered, but we are committing an offence if we do not register.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Does his argument about the voluntary franchise and the distinction between that and a compulsory one mean that he is in favour of making it compulsory to vote?

Mr. Kaufman: Certainly not. I wish that it were compulsory to vote from one point of view: my puny majority of 17,000 would probably double. That is an attractive proposition, but I believe that democracy entitles people not to use the franchise, although I wish that they would, particularly if they are Labour voters. I am considering the fact that it is a voluntary franchise. People decide whether to take it up—they decide not whether to use it but whether to take up the right to have it.
6.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has sensibly made himself scarce. When we debated the matter on the previous occasion, he added up the monumental millions whom we would punish by depriving them of the vote, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out in the Standing Committee—just as I did the last time we voted—the figure is 13,000. This huge subject revolves around 13,000 people: the number who have decided to take up that option.
We are talking not about democracy as a right but about democracy as an option. I do not believe that the vote is an option. Either people are entitled to it or they are not. Although I disagree strongly with Conservative Members about the matter, there might be an argument that it should be granted in perpetuity, rather than being time-limited. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about a compromise between 20 years and nil. I am not a compromiser on the issue. I want nil.
My five is there to chop the period down still further. The reason why I propose five is that, except in unusual circumstances, it would mean that someone qualifying for the franchise would be able to exercise it once. I would be ready reluctantly to accept that, but the 10-year period, which the Government, with sentimental generosity, have decided to abide by, will allow someone to vote in three

general elections. There were three general elections between 1979 to 1987. That is a great deal more than is acceptable.
I am not going to divide the House against the Government. They know that I will not do so because I am subservient to their wishes on most occasions, but I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office that I am looking forward to a response in which he says that, on the basis of the way in which the measure operates, he will consider in a future Bill whether he can reduce the period to five years.
I intend to stay in the House for a very long time. I assure my hon. Friend that, in Parliament after Parliament, I shall table amendments on the matter. I warned Ministers early in this Parliament that it was one of my obsessive interests. I do not let my obsessive interests rest, whether they be related to the film "Singin' in the Rain" or to the overseas franchise.

Mr. Wilshire: I warm to a man of courage, conviction and principles. Why on this occasion is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to push his convictions, which he holds so strongly, to a vote, and to stand up for what he believes in?

Mr. Kaufman: Before I finish—I have spoken for too long—I shall tell the House of a conversation that I had with Denis Healey. His full name is Denis Winston Healey. I asked him how he came to be called Winston. He said, "I was born during the first world war and my father was a great admirer of Winston Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty. He gave me the name Winston because of his huge admiration for Winston Churchill. He did it as a gesture." I said, "But Denis, if your father admired Winston Churchill so much, why did he not call you Winston Healey?" He said, "Hell. A gesture is a gesture." That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stunell: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
I shall speak primarily in support of amendment No. 180, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), not Gorton, but I have added my name to two of the new clauses that have been proposed by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—5 and 7—and I find myself in considerable sympathy with some of the others. That perhaps shows, as the hon. Gentleman said, that an all-party view that something needs to be done is at least beginning to emerge. The Government may take the view that some of the shells have landed somewhat randomly, but the fact that they have been bracketed by a variety of amendments shows perhaps that some progress could be made to the advantage of the Bill, as well as to the groups of British citizens about whom we are concerned.
Amendment No. 180 was, in essence, drafted at the Committee stage, before it broke into the parallel universe of the new clauses created by the hon. Member for Battersea. To a large extent, it overlaps his new clauses. Without repeating all the arguments that he deployed, let me say that the intention is to ensure that we provide not


only a continuing benefit for those who work in international institutions, but a benefit to the UK. Amendment No. 180 defines such international institutions as
any organisation set up pursuant to any treaty or convention of which the United Kingdom is for the time being a signatory.
It would therefore remove doubt and ambiguity in defining such organisations and make the relevant definition sufficiently wide.
The hon. Member for Battersea touched on the matter of the benefits that might accrue to the United Kingdom from extending the franchise to the employees of such organisations, but I should like to expand on those benefits. There are not only many such organisations but, in many cases, treaties require that United Kingdom citizens comprise part of those organisations' staff and provide support to those organisations.
More to the point, there is a very strong UK interest in our playing an active part in those organisations. That interest is not only wide ranging, but potentially long lasting. Through our participation in them, we may gain not only diplomatic advantage but perhaps economic and even linguistic and cultural advantage. Those benefits should not be thrown away.
As the hon. Member for Battersea said, we may lose those benefits in two ways. They might be lost, first, if we were to inhibit the participation of UK citizens in those bodies. People might be reluctant to play a part in those organisations if they were forced to forgo the wider benefits of United Kingdom citizenship.
Secondly, the issue of disengagement from the United Kingdom could affect people currently working in such organisations and those who will one day work in them. The popular description of people who have been affected by disengagement is that they have "gone native". In many organisations, people can go native pretty quickly, and the Government might think that, for the general benefit of the United Kingdom, it is worthwhile trying to slow down that process.
The case for amendment No. 180, therefore, is based not simply on the rights and obligations of citizens working for such organisations, but on the United Kingdom's pure self-interest as a player on the international stage. Such a realpolitik argument may appeal to the Government, even if other arguments fall on deaf ears.
Some of the other amendments in this group address broader issues which Ministers should consider. It is sensible to allow family members of people working overseas to vote at 18, allowing them essentially to get on the bottom step of the escalator of our democratic process. Those people are expected to move, if not involuntarily, certainly without resistance. I should think that such a proposal could not be criticised on the basis that those people will subsequently become perfidious donators to United Kingdom political parties and undermine democracy in the United Kingdom. The issue is one of ensuring that they are able to develop roots in and links with the United Kingdom and to exercise their United Kingdom citizenship.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept—in an attempt to further the consensual nature of our

proceedings—that, if we were to allow people to join a rolling register, to begin the process, there would have to be a transitional period of perhaps 12 months in which those who are currently abroad were allowed to register on such a rolling register?

Mr. Stunell: It is always worth trying to push the limits in our debate. However, we really should consider whether the Bill's objective should be to include and continue on a register everyone overseas who is currently registered. That is one option in proceeding on the matter. Another option is to open registration to everyone who is currently overseas, even if they have not yet registered. That seemed to be what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.
If there were an amendment proposing the first option, the hon. Gentleman might be able to tempt me to support it. People in that category not only have taken the trouble to register, but, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said, comprise a small group. There are only six such people in my constituency, and that number may be typical of the number in other hon. Members' constituencies.
I am less persuaded that we should throw open inclusion to everyone who is currently overseas. I do not think that hon. Members could be persuaded that those people have not registered because they have not been able to get round to it. I think that they have not registered because it is not an attractive proposition for them to do so.
The intervention by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has served one purpose—to divert me from my thread of argument—and I appreciate the spirit in which it was done.
New clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea and to which I put my name, introduces the "use it or lose it" concept. It also contains an element of self-regulation, which I hope Ministers will take on board if they are at all tempted to adopt such a provision.
"Use it or lose it" is also the essence of amendment No. 176, which was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. I think that, rather than providing a completely open-ended obligation or opportunity for those who live and work overseas, it would be appropriate to include a process of rolling re-registration.
I hope that Ministers will have listened to this debate and appreciated the concerns expressed by hon. Members holding various views on the issue. However, each of those views goes to the same point. Overseas, there is a group of United Kingdom citizens who have, and should continue to have, a role to play in the United Kingdom democratic process. In coming decades, the size of that group of people may well grow.
I do not overlook the fact that one of the reasons why the restrictions are being introduced is to stop the abuse of donations from overseas. I am well aware of that issue and of the fact that Ministers may feel that they should make only carefully judged and limited concessions on the issue. However, I ask Ministers not simply to shut the door on every overseas group and category, but to determine which amendments they are able to accept, or which specific provisions they might otherwise be able to import into the Bill. The amendments express feelings that are widespread in the House.

Mr. Miller: When the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was appealing at the Dispatch Box for


consensus, he seemed to be defeating his own argument by adopting an aggressive style. I assure him that hon. Members who believe that the current principle is wrong—for the very reason outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—do not intend to extend it to include people from his ethnic grouping. Despite the fact that he comes from south Wales, the hon. Gentleman will keep the votes in Ribble Valley. [Interruption.] I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was going to intervene, to say that the hon. Gentleman will not keep those votes, but he is merely going to speak to the Minister.
I should like to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. He mentioned Vauxhall Motors UK, in my constituency, which is an important player in both the regional economy and the British economy. Some super people are leading that company, not only in Britain but in Europe. However, in the context of the franchise, their position—they are answerable to the parent company, which is registered in the United States—is different from that of people who work for institutions of which Britain is a member.
7 pm
We shall come to clause 48 later. In Committee, the Conservatives tabled an amendment that would not have allowed donations from companies incorporated in the European Union. They cannot have it both ways. They have recognised that we do not have the necessary transparency.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult judgment to make, because the line has to be drawn somewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has a clear idea about where it should be drawn. Others have said, "Yes, but" in various ways. With the exception of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who, I think, would prefer the status quo to prevail, most of those involved in the debate want a consensus to be reached.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman think it ironic that those of Italian or French descent who work for Vauxhall in his constituency are encouraged to vote in elections in France and Italy—the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) mentioned other countries as well—while we are going in the other direction?

Mr. Miller: We are dealing with the franchise of those who work for Britain in institutions of which we are a member. There is some common ground. All of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, accept that diplomats, the armed forces and British Council staff are legitimately covered by the current legislation. However, other categories should fall within that broad definition. The facts that the mother of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is French, as we discovered in Committee, that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) lived in Finland, or that I happened to brought up in Malta are red herrings, although they made for a good debate in Committee.
The essential principle relates to institutions of which Britain is a member. I appreciate that lines have to be drawn somewhere, but as we attempt to reach a consensus, it is not illogical to include those who work for institutions such as NATO within the ambit of existing

legislation, which incorporates the armed forces, diplomats and the British Council. It is ludicrous and unfair that a general or someone of diplomatic status in NATO is covered, but a civilian member of personnel is excluded.

Mr. Grieve: I seek clarification of the hon. Gentleman's views. He is talking about new clause 7, but I think he will agree that it would be unnecessary if new clause 5 were agreed to, because all the categories would be covered by virtue of the ability of individuals to continue provided that they re-registered. Would not new clause 5 deal with his points?

Mr. Miller: I am not a million miles from the hon. Gentleman. I accept that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley seemed to want it drawn too far from where most people in the country would regard as acceptable. If the principles that I am espousing were incorporated in the 10-year rule proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister or the five-year rule espoused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, we could have a workable consensus.
I appreciate that some Conservative Members would say that that would not go far enough. I understand their point, but they have to understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere in an attempt to arrive at a consensus. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look for ways in which the line can be drawn slightly away from his current proposal. I would have no objection if the base line was that espoused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, so long as there was a mechanism by which those who work for legitimate organisations of which Britain is a member could continue to be enfranchised.

Mr. Wilshire: Unlike the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, I am very happy to support those on my Front Bench. I trust that they are suitably grateful. I note that a word about my enthusiasm is already going into the little blue book. I look forward to the result of that enthusiasm.
New clause 8 and amendment No. 176 are necessary to meet my concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends—and, by the sound of it, of some Labour Members. The Government's plans to cut the time available worry me. As far as I can gather, no valid reasons for the change have been given. I hope that the Minister will give us some. There has been a spirit of compromise around and I am prepared to listen. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not give any reasons, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt at least until he speaks.
Given that the proposal was not in the Neill recommendations, the Minister needs to explain why the Government now think it so important. I have heard no evidence of abuse of the current arrangements, and the Government have offered none. Abuse would be the most important reason for change. If there is any evidence of abuse, perhaps the Minister could give it to us.
As others have said, there are so few people registered abroad that I am at a loss to understand why the measure has become such a key part of a complicated Bill. This is a minor matter and there are many far better things to do,


such as finding the money to ensure that my hospital does not have its accident and emergency unit closed by the Government. There are so many other more important things than messing about with this change. It will clearly cost money and I would rather that that money was spent on preventing cuts to my hospital. Why are the Government worried about such a small group of people?
I have tried to find out what research has been done. How many people will be affected? How many of the very few who register stay abroad beyond the period that the Minister is proposing? My guess is that only a minute number of people will be caught by the change. Why is the Minister making it? It is also important to know whether the Government have done any research on the sort of people who would lose their vote. That would allow us to see whether the proposal was even-handed, or whether an ulterior motive existed.

Mr. Miller: Would that not be an abuse of the Government's power, as the outcome of such research might confer a party political advantage? Another Government—not this one—might be tempted to make decisions based on that outcome. Should we not be dealing with the principle?

Mr. Wilshire: I do not see that objection at all. There is no need to ask people how they are going to vote. The questions will concern their reasons for living abroad, why they chose to register, and how long they propose to be abroad. That is the sort of fundamental research that any Government should undertake before bringing such proposals before the House.
I would also be interested to know how many of the small number who register actually use their votes. That should not be too difficult to find out, as the marked register is available from every constituency. It would be relatively simple to go back as far as the previous two general elections, say, and find out how many overseas votes were exercised.
My third worry is that the Government appear not to have consulted the people affected. If they have, I hope that the Minister will describe how the people who currently have votes were approached.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): There have been many representations from, and discussions with, the people affected.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, but according to Home Office evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1998, the overwhelming majority of the representations being received at the time were requests for an extension to the period.

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that those who were consulted this time rather appreciated being able to keep the franchise.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces my point by reporting that that view is still held. I hope that the Government will give details of any research that has been carried out. How many people have

been contacted, how many have asked for a shorter period, and how many have asked for longer? That information would be useful.
The Government have not explained why they have changed their mind since 1989, when the then Labour Opposition backed the 20-year proposal. I have heard it said in the debate that that was some sort of compromise but, even if the Government were not wedded to the principle, something must have happened to bring about a change of heart. Governments dislike having their U-turns exposed and having to justify them. However, that is another example of a U-turn by this Government. They are always doing it, and it would be nice to know why they have torn up their previous beliefs in favour of a new set.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) offered a sensible and understandable way to adopt an approach based on the "use it or lose it" principle. I have no difficulty in accepting that people should have some link with the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal is not the best way forward. However, it is not so dissimilar to new clause 8, for which I hope the hon. Gentleman's conviction about the importance of the "use it or lose it" principle will lead him to vote if the Government do not accept his new clause 5. He has argued strongly in favour of new clause 8, and I look forward to welcoming him into the Lobby in support of that new clause when the time comes.
7.15 pm
I commend new clause 8 to the hon. Member for Battersea on the basis that requiring people to register every year is quite a good way to ensure that links with the United Kingdom are kept up. Given the spirit of compromise and consensus in the debate, it is reasonable to accept the case for such links, but I am worried that the absence of a mechanism for continuing the present arrangements for as long as people had expected will be an impediment to those who feel strongly about their home country but who want to accept a posting overseas. It would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom if people were prevented from going abroad and doing a good job on our behalf because they would be disfranchised as a result.
When he spoke about new clause 7, the hon. Member for Battersea referred to international organisations. I was not clear whether he was talking about formal organisations only, or whether he also meant non-governmental bodies. He referred to the European Union and NATO, and I agree that the people involved with those organisations constitute an important group. Similarly, however, there are people who work for non-governmental organisations such as charities who do not come within the definitions proposed for those working for the official organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that.
A group of people not exempted by new clause 7 are those who work for British businesses. Big multinationals send some of their key employees abroad to run branches of the main business but, whereas diplomats come and go—and in any case return to London after a four-year posting—some business men and women are sent abroad for very long periods.
However, because they work for British firms, they come back to head office regularly. Their companies are seriously affected by British legislation and the nature of


the British Government. Their futures and prospects are tied up with the fate of their companies in this country. If anyone is to be exempted, it should be those people.
I hope that we do not go down the route of having two classes of people. The right hon. Member for Gorton argued that it was wrong to put voluntary franchises and compulsory franchises in opposition. In the same way, it would be wrong and an affront to democracy to divide British citizens abroad into two classes—those who are allowed to vote and those who are not. All British citizens abroad should have the right to vote.

Mr. Stunell: Is there not an incongruity in the hon. Gentleman's view, given the different qualifications that apply to people in the diplomatic and military services, and to people working for the British Council? Does not the situation that he describes exist already?

Mr. Wilshire: Yes, it does. However, the arrangements that I would prefer would render those distinctions unnecessary. The House must never try to create a democracy with two types of people in it. That would be very dangerous for the principle underlying how we run our country.
Finally, I turn to amendment No. 176. Even if my arguments are ignored and the Government do not accept the proposals from my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, the legislation should not be made retrospective. People who live and work abroad on the understanding that they will have a vote for a particular length of time should not be penalised. It could be that they would not have gone abroad if they had known that they could not vote. Moreover, such people might find that, even though they wanted to keep their votes, they could not return home to make sure that they did.
I really hate retrospective legislation, and I make a strong plea to the Minister to assure the House—even if he will accept no other argument—that, in the spirit of compromise, he will not go down the route of retrospective legislation.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to tell him that, when I entered the House six years ago, I would have found two things inconceivable—first, that I could disagree with him on any subject under the sun; secondly, that I would be invited to reduce the franchise—to reduce the rights of British people to vote. There we are, however: alas, things move on.
I shall be brief, but I want to tell the House about all the e-mails, letters, faxes and telephone calls that I have received from profoundly patriotic British citizens, and all the meetings that I have had with them—[Interruption.] I shall come to the Conservatives later. Anyway, those who have been to see me, or have contacted me in other ways, have said that they want to keep their right to vote. We are not the French Parliament, in which Members can represent far-flung sunny climes of the former empire and colonies; but I feel that it would be wrong not to record those people's dismay about what is being proposed tonight.
I have three reasons for concern. First, it is a good principle of democracy for us to extend any franchise, rather than reduce it. Secondly, we should be proud of all

our citizens living and working overseas. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned the business community, but British citizens make a huge contribution to many voluntary and non-profit-making organisations, such as the World Council of Churches, trade union international organisations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and various non-governmental organisations.
When I was travelling in on the tube today, I saw a moving advertisement for Voluntary Service Overseas, asking people to work for £400 a year and to risk malaria to fly the flag for Britain. Many VSO members subsequently remain in the international community because of a love of their country, and I do not think that their vote should be taken away.
Thirdly, I feel that, in a global economy in which democracy needs to be preserved and extended, we should fly our flag for the democratic process and practice, rather than saying that people can exercise their democratic rights only if they reside in the United Kingdom. Conservative Members have made interesting and enjoyable speeches: I am delighted to observe that they seem to be discovering many hidden virtues in Europe that I do not recall their praying in aid before.

Mr. Wilshire: Where? Where?

Mr. MacShane: I am glad to note that the xenophobic beast is rising up again after his generous internationalist speech, but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke glowingly of Italy and of France. I hope that we shall observe the same at Prime Minister's Question Time and other events. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It appears that, as we expected, the Tories' love of Europe was instrumental only in so far as it might embarrass the Government.
I have another reason for being unconvinced of the generosity of spirit involved in the Conservatives' arguments. Theirs is the party—a party for which hon. Members here may have voted—that introduced the poll tax, which removed between 1 million and 4 million British citizens from the electoral roll, deliberately, cynically and cold-bloodedly, to fix and rig elections.
Furthermore—this will for ever place a mark of shame on the Conservatives' period of office—the Conservatives changed the terms of the immigration Act 1971 in the British Nationality Act 1981. They did so not in order to take away the right to vote—although that would have been a serious measure—but in order to take away the right to citizenship of the descendants of British citizens who lived overseas.
There are many British citizens, to whom the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred, whose children are born overseas. If they marry foreigners and have their children overseas, that generation—the grandchildren of the people whom we have been discussing, who are living and working overseas—will lose the right to be British, save on the fiat, or at the discretion, of the Home Secretary. That was a shaming alteration of our nationality laws, which took away citizenship and has caused great hurt and concern to many British people overseas.
However, I do not want to be polemical tonight. I think that the new clauses and amendments are sensible, and go in the right direction. The "use it or lose it" proposition that has emerged since the Bill was tabled reflects the


wishes of British citizens who actively wish to maintain a participatory voting link. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is not here now, and other Ministers have spent a great deal of time—perhaps, given that this is only a small part of a complicated Bill, more than we might have expected—meeting and talking to concerned citizens. I have attended those meetings, and I salute them for their generosity in finding time to do that. I do not know how, given the number of Home Office Bills, a Home Office Minister finds time to do anything other than keep us here all night.

Mr. Grieve: It seems that we may be building on the chrysalis of consensus that emerged in Committee.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the merits of the "use it or lose it" approach is that it removes the frequent complaint from some of his hon. Friends that people suddenly intervene in domestic politics, having shown no interest for some time?

Mr. MacShane: I think that it offers a sense of continuity, rather than the ability to be "bought in"—not necessarily in a financial sense—to participate in an election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has done remarkable and assiduous work, which has been warmly welcomed by many British citizens overseas—all of whom seem to vote Labour nowadays. I cannot bring myself massively to disagree with the Conservatives' new clause 8 either. In any event, I do not want to press this to a Division in order to record a vote. Perhaps when the Bill goes to another place, Ministers can examine the problems, because there is time for that to happen before it is enacted. Perhaps we can arrive at a conclusion that will deal with the many protests that I have received, and will honour the tradition that the House always seeks to extend rather than reduce the franchise.

Mr. Tipping: It seems that clause 132 has become one of the most contentious parts of the Bill. I congratulate hon. Members in all parts of the House who have tabled ingenious and well-thought-out amendments, which deserve serious consideration and which I will consider and, indeed, already have considered.
In the light of all those good ideas—shells, as they were called by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—the Government are inclined to look for a consensus. Such a consensus appears to be growing, and I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—who is not present now, but who will be back—and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who argued for consensus but whose language at times took us away from it, that we will consider what might be done.
Clause 132 takes forward the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is an influential member. He has changed his mind on the issue since the Select Committee report, but I do not criticise him for that. He has argued that we need to move away from the present 20-year period to the Home Affairs Committee's proposed five-year period—a view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton retains.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked me a number of questions; let me deal with two. First, he asked about the principle behind the proposal. I think that the argument is fairly clear and straightforward. If a person chooses to live overseas for a long period, at some point—there is an argument about when that point is—they are distanced from the current political climate. They are, in a sense, fighting old battles with old ideas. We live in a period of modernisation in which we move forward and ideas develop.

Mr. Wilshire: I am pleased that the Minister is viewing the new clauses in a consensual way. Could he give a little more thought to his use of the word "choose"? Some people, including voluntary workers and business people, could say that they will not be posted overseas. Their contract or their beliefs, however, lead them to live overseas, and I do not think that they should be caught.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and I will come to it in more detail in a few minutes. People in the voluntary sector and in the commercial sector, to which he referred in his speech, generally do not live abroad for 20 years, but come and go. However, we should acknowledge the importance of people in both the voluntary and commercial sectors, as well as public servants, who work overseas.
The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation. The Select Committee on Home Affairs did some work on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), in his normal, generous way, pointed out that there had been a series of meetings on this issue. Perhaps there were more meetings about this than about any other part of the Bill. That is rather surprising, in the light of the fact that, at present, slightly more than 13,000 overseas voters are registered here. We do not have information about how many of those voted in the last election, or what kind of people they are.
The central issue is how long someone needs to be overseas to become detached from the political process. It may be 20 years or it may, as the Home Affairs Committee recommended, be five years. There may be a middle way. The Government's preferred option is for a 10-year period. It is a compromise that will work in many ways. It allows people to be overseas for quite a long time—perhaps enough for two postings—yet remain on the register.
A couple of other ways forward have been proposed. The one that seems to have captured the imagination of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during this debate has been the "use it or lose it" option. That is a subtle way of countering the argument that, if people have been away from home for some time, they are out of touch. Registering within five years and continuing to register on a yearly basis shows a commitment to remaining in touch with the real issues.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister concede that, with new technology, the internet and satellite television, people who live abroad can keep up to date with current affairs in their countries of origin? Recurring registration seems to leave the way open for us all to agree.

Mr. Tipping: New technology, information technology and the use of digital television certainly enable people to


keep in touch better. The question before the House is how long it is necessary for someone to have been away to lose touch. The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that it is increasingly easy to remain in touch. I remember reading that, in the old days, it took 174 days for a letter to come from India reporting whether a battle had been lost or won. Today, such an event would be reported almost simultaneously.

Mr. Evans: It is on CNN.

Mr. Tipping: Absolutely.
The question is whether we are right about how long people should live abroad—should it be for five, 10 or 20 years? Or is it better to support the "use it or lose it" option?
A third option which has been discussed tonight is to extend the service conditions to make allowance for people who work for British organisations abroad. The telling point was made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Spelthorne. What is the difference between a civil servant working in Brussels or for NATO, and someone working for an aid agency in Mozambique? What about the employee of Vauxhall Motors UK who works abroad but is still interested in British issues?
The final issue concerns amendment No. 176 which, in a sense, maintains existing rights. There is a logic to that. The counter-argument is that, if the amendment were accepted, at the beginning of this year—before the legislation came into operation—people would be safeguarded for 20 years, but after these provisions were implemented, they would be safeguarded only for as long as we decided. Different classes of voters have been mentioned, and amendment No. 176 might not be the best way forward.
The Government's preferred option is to have a simple rule and explanation that everyone can understand, and for that to command consensus across the political parties. There seems to have been a growing consensus in Committee and in the Chamber tonight, apart from the occasional burst of shelling. I believe that the "use it or lose it" option meets everybody's needs. It deals with all the points that have been discussed.

Mr. Evans: I welcome the Minister's approach. Will he also take account of proposed new subsection (6)(b) of new clause 8, which deals with people who have not yet reached the age of majority, but will do so while they are abroad with their parents?

Mr. Tipping: That, again, is a fair point, but a careful application of the "use it or lose it" principle would meet their needs too.
I do not want to make false promises. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said throughout the Bill's proceedings, it is important that we take the political parties with us, and that a consensus emerges. It seems from this evening's discussion that we have not simply a kernel of a consensus but a wave that is beginning to roll out over "use it or lose it".
I am well aware, having received representations and heard the views expressed in Committee and in the debate tonight that this argument will not go away. I simply say to those right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the new

clauses and amendments in this group that I guarantee to listen to the argument and reflect on it. Let me be clear on this: I make no guarantee that I will bring forward an amendment. However, if the consensus continues to build and develop across all the political parties, the "use it or lose it" option may become a real possibility. In that spirit of consensus, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea to withdraw new clause 5.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister clarify one point about the "use it or lose it" principle, no matter whether it is introduced under new clause 5 or new clause 8 or some amalgam of them? If someone registers within five years and continues to register every year, can they continue to do so for ever, or will there be some limit?

Mr. Miller: It will be done by consensus.

Mr. Tipping: I hear what my hon. Friend says: we would have to discuss that. There is a strong argument for a cut-off date, because a "use it or lose it" option would be more generous than the current provisions. However, I give no guarantee, except that, as the Home Secretary has said, if a consensus emerges and a model develops that has the consent of all the political parties, it will deserve serious consideration.

Mr. Linton: We have had a debate on the nature of compromise and the way towards consensus. The Government's original attempt at consensus was to offer a mid point—a geometrical bisection between 20 years and nought, which was, of course, 10 years. The alternative that has emerged might be described as a non-linear compromise—five years, not 10, but with continuous registration. That proves that the middle way does not always mean reaching a mid point. I claim no credit for thinking of that solution; it came from the international organisations of the parties.
I freely confess that I have, as the Minister said, changed my mind since the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee. As that recommendation was for five years, however, I have changed my mind not on the length of time required, but on the way in which the law may apply to those who are prepared to re-register year after year. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, our approach contains an important self-regulating feature, ensuring that the amendment would apply only to the small number of people who show determination to register. There are perhaps 3 million or 4 million British passport holders overseas, but we are talking about only 13,000 of them—just one in 300 are determined to keep their vote.
New clause 7, on international organisations, was never meant as special pleading for those who work for public sector organisations. It was intended to be taken with new clause 5, on the "use it or lose it" principle, to create a double system by which people whose commitment to the UK is beyond doubt could be assured a continuing vote. Those who work in the public sector for organisations of which we are treaty members would receive an assurance. Those who do not would prove their good faith through registering year after year. In either case, the intention of the amendments is to set a test of people's continued commitment rather than opening up the vote to the millions who live abroad and who have British citizenship.
I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. I understand that he offers no guarantee, but it is incumbent on all parties to seek the consensus that would persuade him to accept an amendment so that what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) called the chrysalis of consensus may burst into the butterfly of agreement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 98, line 30, at end insert—
'(8) Until such time as the Commission may determine, the Commission's chief executive appointed under sub-paragraph (7) may incur expenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of the Commission, whether or not the membership of the Commission has yet to be constituted in accordance with section 1.
(9) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (8) shall be exercisable by that person subject to and in accordance with any directions given to him by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 85.

Mr. Tipping: As the Home Secretary stated on Second Reading, the Government intend to bring the Electoral Commission into being as a functioning body before the next general election. Whatever the timing of either Royal Assent or the election, we can be certain that the timetable for establishment of the commission will be tight. The Chamber has already discussed the demands and choices about priorities that the commission will face. It is essential that the groundwork for the rapid and smooth establishment of the commission as a going concern should be done as soon as possible. Once appointed, the commissioners should be able to devote their attention and energies to implementing the Bill's core provisions.
7.45 pm
Schedule 1(11)(7) provides for the Secretary of State to appoint a person to be interim chief executive of the commission pending the appointment of the electoral commissioners. The intention is to appoint an interim chief executive as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent so that he or she can take forward work both on logistical issues relating to the establishment of the commission, such as accommodation and recruitment of staff, and give thought to practical arrangements for implementing the controls on income and expenditure set out in the Bill.
Our objective is to ensure that the commission will be in a position to discharge its functions as soon as possible following the appointment of the commissioners. In doing so, the interim chief executive will need to enter into contracts and incur expenditure and make other decisions relating to implementation of the commission's functions in the short term. Paragraph 11(8), introduced by amendment No. 85, would provide the interim chief executive with the authority necessary to incur

expenditure and to do other things in the name of and on behalf of the commissioners pending their appointment. We have already discussed that process.
Paragraph 11(9) would require the interim chief executive to exercise that power only in conformity with directions given by the Secretary of State. Given the need to incur expenditure in advance of the appointment of the commissioners, it is also necessary to make provision for the appointment of an interim accounting officer until such time as the Speaker's Committee is able to do so under paragraph 19(1). Amendment No. 86 would therefore amend paragraph 19 to provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a member of the commission's staff, or some other person—for example, the interim chief executive—as the commission's accounting officer until an appointment is made.
Quick progress is essential on the establishment of the commission. The Government—and I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House—believe that the commission should be up and running in time for the general election—whenever it comes. I hope that the House will accept that the amendments will facilitate that.

Sir George Young: We should perhaps put a sleeping policeman in front of this juggernaut. Some important implications lie behind the amendment. The Minister explained that the commission wants to hit the ground running, adding that there was a tight timetable and a demanding schedule. To avoid delay, he wants to give powers to the chief executive to begin work before the commission is formally established.
That seems innocuous, and if the Bill had been passed during the previous Session, we should not have been too concerned about it. However, this is probably the last full Session of the current Parliament, and the Bill may not receive Royal Assent until November, the month in which many of the Government's Bills from the past Session received it. There may be an election in May 2001—or even earlier.
The amendment gives powers to an individual to act in the name of the Electoral Commission before the commissioners are appointed. If an election were called before the electoral commissioners had been appointed, or if key decisions have to be taken by the commission in order to meet the challenging timetable set for it, that chap would have to do the work. The amendment potentially undermines all the Bill's attempts to make the commission independent by allowing the Secretary of State to nominate a chief executive who then carries out the powers of the commission.
Under paragraph 11(7) of schedule 1, we note that the chief executive may be appointed by the Secretary of State. It would be helpful to know what time scale the Minister envisages for that. Will it be done ahead of Royal Assent? Does he have anyone in mind? In view of the powers that the chief executive may have in the interval between his appointment and the appointment of the commission, does the Minister propose to consult Opposition parties as to who that chap may be?
Amendment No. 84 gives the Secretary of State's appointee wide powers. He can act on behalf of the commission until
such time as the commission may determine.


The commission's powers are very wide indeed. Paragraph 2 of the schedule provides that the commission
may do anything (except borrow money) which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of their functions.
Everything covered by clauses 1 to 11 could be undertaken by that appointee of the Secretary of State. He could deal with policy development grants; with education about electoral systems; and with party broadcasts. Indeed, he could even undertake chunks of part II. The only constraint on his activities is that they should be
subject to and in accordance with any directions given to him by the Secretary of State.
That does not give the Opposition enormous reassurance.
It may take some time to appoint the electoral commissioners. The process is set out in clause 3. As I understand the matter, the commissioners cannot be appointed until the Speaker's Committee has been established. Its agreement must be secured before an Address from the House of Commons can be issued; then the electoral commissioners can be appointed. I assume that the Nolan committee process for public appointments will be used. That may take time. The people approached may not want to take up the job—or if they want to do so, they may not be able to for some time.
In the meantime, the clock will be ticking. If we are to believe the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), the date has already been fixed. Progress will have to be made in the absence of the commissioners. Those crucial, independent decisions will be taken by someone appointed by the Secretary of State and subject to his direction. The general election could be called before any commissioners have been appointed and that chap will be in charge.
Can that be right? Without the amendment, the chief executive cannot act on behalf of the commission—with it, he can. Without the amendment, there would at least be some incentive to appoint the commissioners promptly, so we would not need it. At a stroke, it could destroy the assembling of a visibly neutral body to oversee the next general election.
The powers vested in the chief executive are enormous. I am not sure that any civil servant would want to discharge them. We have spent much time discussing those powers. It would be helpful if the Minister could take us through the timetable. When does the Secretary of State envisage appointing a person as the commission's chief executive? What is the time scale after Royal Assent for the appointment of the commissioners? When does the Minister expect that the commission will be able to operate and to take over all those responsibilities from the acting chief executive?
If my understanding is correct, that acting chief executive may have to do some of the legwork that the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. He referred to some logistical issues that would have to be addressed. We need to know a little more about which sensitive political decisions might have to be taken by that chief executive until such time as the commissioners can take over from him.

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made several important points. I recognise the sleeping policeman that he has placed in

the path of the Bill. However, he also noted that the clock would be ticking; although he appreciates the need to make progress, he rightly asks for checks and safeguards.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable. The Government will use their best endeavours—I am sure that we shall have the support and help of this House and of the other place—to obtain Royal Assent before the summer recess. That may not be the case; as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, Bills have slipped in the past. However, we aim to have Royal Assent by the summer. At that time, we shall appoint an interim chief executive. Under the current timetable, the commissioners would be in place in the autumn. November has been mentioned, but that date is not set in stone.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether anyone was lined up for the post of interim chief executive. That is not the case. I envisage that the post will be filled by a civil servant, who will undertake purely logistical work—to set up the office and put systems in place. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the range of important functions—some political—that the commission will be asked to undertake, but, at that stage, the interim chief executive will work purely on logistical arrangements.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how commissioners would be appointed and gave the answer himself: the Nolan rules will apply. We have already discussed the type of people who might be commissioners and what their background might be. The Government are determined—as are the Opposition—to ensure that the body is free from any accusation of vested interest or political partiality. That should be a point of reassurance for the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill is driven by a new determination—not only from the Government, but from all parties—to ensure that the commission is open, transparent and honest; that it is a body that all can trust for independent advice.
There is no intention whatever that the interim chief executive will be involved in the more contentious parts of the work. I made it clear in my opening remarks and in my response; the interim chief executive will "hit the ground running", as the right hon. Gentleman said. He will ensure that the logistics of the operation are in place. The sooner we can move to the appointment—under Nolan rules—of a permanent chief executive, with commissioners also appointed under those rules, the better for all of us. With that reassurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be content for the amendments to be accepted.

Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been as helpful as he can. However, will he confirm the following points? If the Bill received Royal Assent by the summer recess—the scenario that he outlined—and supposing that there was a dissolution of Parliament in October this year, would the election be fought under the rules envisaged in the Bill, which would then be an Act, or under the current rules, especially those that apply to expenditure limits?
Under an alternative scenario, the measure might not receive Royal Assent by the summer recess. We have already heard that further amendments will be tabled; they will have to be considered in another place and, inevitably, they will return to the House. If the Minister does not hit his targets, and the timetable for the whole


system to be up and running is not achieved, will not the chief executive have to take decisions that are more than simply logistical?
8 pm
I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division, but I do want to express my belief that as the powers—which would not be constrained by amendment No. 84—given to the chief executive to
incur expenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of the Commission
are not restricted to purely logistical matters, in some scenarios he may find himself taking some rather sensitive political decisions.

Mr. Tipping: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) invites me to answer hypothetical questions, and I may find myself in the difficulty that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), did in speculating on the date of the general election. If we do not achieve Royal Assent by the summer, the sooner the general election is after Royal Assent the more obvious it becomes that the general election will have to be fought under current rules. However, much depends on the progress that we make. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire say, sotto voce, "That answers that".

Sir George Young: I am afraid that the Minister's hearing is not as good as he thought it was. I said, "Even if the Bill becomes an Act, we shall fight the election under the old rules". I am not quite sure how one does that.

Mr. Tipping: We would have to fight the election under the old rules because the commission would not be in place. If there were a general election in October and Royal Assent had not been achieved by then, the election would obviously take place under the old rules. I believe that, if Royal Assent is received at the end of July and the general election is in October, the logistics and the argument would be that it would not be possible to fight under the new rules and we would have to fight under the current rules. However, much depends on the speed of the Bill's passage; if sleeping policemen are not erected, we can make quick progress.
If we are able to appoint an interim chief executive with logistical powers to set up the office and systems, the more progress we make, the more it becomes possible to put in place new arrangements for the general election. As I said earlier, that is what the Government desire and I believe that it is what all parties in the House now desire.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 85, in page 102, line 5, at end insert—
'(6) The Secretary of State may designate any member of the Commission's staff or other person to be the Commission's accounting officer until such time as the first designation made under sub—paragraph (1) takes effect.'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
'the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be the chairman of the Committee, and the following other members, namely'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4, 86 to 89 and 5.

Mr. O'Brien: In Committee, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) moved an amendment on much the same lines as amendment No. 3, which provides for the Speaker to chair the Speaker's Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), said then that we would discuss with Madam Speaker her views on the matter, and I am pleased to advise the House that she has agreed that the Speaker of the day should indeed chair the Speaker's Committee and take an active part in its work.
With the Speaker in the Chair, amendment No. 4 reduces the number of ordinary members of the Committee that are appointed by the Speaker from six to five. The appointment of those five members will be entirely at the Speaker's discretion. In particular, there will be no requirement on the Speaker to ensure that the membership of the Committee as a whole reflects the balance of the parties in the House. Indeed, the Speaker has indicated that she intends to appoint one Government Back Bencher, three from the principal Opposition party and one from another opposition party. The result, taking into account the three ex officio members, will be a Speaker's Committee which is exactly balanced as between Government and Opposition Members.
With the Speaker at the helm and a balanced membership, I hope that the House will be assured that the Speaker's Committee will discharge its functions in a non-partisan manner and, in doing so, will act as the guarantor of the independence of the Electoral Commission.
Amendment No. 86 corrects a drafting error in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2. The intended purpose of that provision is to require the Speaker's Committee to report periodically to the House of Commons on the exercise by the Committee of its own functions. As drafted, paragraph 1(1) erroneously required the Speaker's Committee to report on the exercise of the Electoral Commission's functions. I hope that the amendment will be endorsed by the House.
I hope that, on that basis, the House will be able to agree to the amendments.

Sir George Young: That was a very helpful speech. Amendment No. 3 incorporates part of amendment No. 17, which the Opposition moved in Committee, and it seems to me right that the Speaker's Committee should have the Speaker in it. We are delighted that our oratory was successful. I was pleased to hear of the consultations that have taken place with Madam Speaker, both on her views on appointment and on how the five members of


the House might be appointed. The original formula was somewhat vague about the overall composition of the Committee. It seemed to us that the fact that some members were specified created an inbuilt Government majority, and that the Speaker might then have used her discretion to put that right or she might have appointed the six from the House in proportion to the balance in the House. I was delighted to hear how the five appointments will be made. That information relieves our concern.
The Minister has explained that amendment No. 86 resulted from a typing error. We accept that.
Amendment No. 5 is reassuring. The Minister may recall amendment No. 20 tabled in Committee, because the Bill as drafted allowed the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee to agree to the appointment of the commissioners, even if everyone else on the Speaker's Committee disagreed. Putting the Speaker in as Chairman gets around that potential problem. Real progress has been made and we welcome the amendments.

Mr. Stunell: I add my words of support for the revisions, which very much reflect the character of the previous debate. It is good to see the Minister reflecting that debate and returning to the House with proposals that will go a long way towards ensuring not just that the Committee behaves fairly, but that it is absolutely above reproach in the public's eyes.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 14, leave out "six" and insert "five".—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

THE SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 103, line 20, leave out "Commission" and insert "Committee".

No. 87, in page 103, line 25, at end insert—
'(aa) the Speaker of the House of Commons;'.

No. 88, in page 103, line 41, leave out paragraph 3.

No. 89, in page 104, line 9, at end insert—
'(3) The Committee may appoint a member of the Committee to act as chairman at any meeting of the Committee in the absence of the Speaker.'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION CHAIRMAN

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 36, leave out—
'chairman of the Speaker's Committee'
and insert—
'Speaker of the House of Commons'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 5

REVIEWS OF ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL MATTERS

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
'(4A) Each report made by the Commission under this section shall be published by them in such manner as they may determine.'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 6

COMMISSION TO BE CONSULTED ON CHANGES TO ELECTORAL LAW

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
'(i) an order under section 17A(3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (free delivery of election addresses at elections to the Greater London Authority).'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 9

BROADCASTERS TO HAVE REGARD TO COMMISSION'S VIEWS ON PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 45, leave out from "broadcasts," to end of line 5 on page 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 109.

Mr. O'Brien: During consideration in Committee of part I, which was taken on the Floor of the House, we had a useful debate on two amendments to clause 9 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we would reflect on the views that were being expressed from both sides of the House. Since then, we have had an opportunity to discuss the matter further with the BBC. Amendment No. 8, which has the support of both the BBC and S4C, is the result of those discussions.
The effect of amendment No. 8 is to remove subsection 3(b) from clause 9. In doing so, it brings the relationship between the Electoral Commission and the BBC more closely into line with the relationship between the Electoral Commission and both the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. In all cases, the broadcasting authorities will have to have regard to the views of the Electoral Commission when determining their policy or rules, as the case may be, on party political broadcasts. Any such views will be non-binding, but the broadcasting authorities will be bound to give them proper consideration.
The Electoral Commission will no doubt have views on the criteria for determining which political parties qualify for party political broadcasts and on the length and the frequency of such broadcasts. The amendment will not in any way prevent the commission from commenting on those important aspects of the BBC's overall policy on party political broadcasts, but the Government agree that it is inappropriate to single out those aspects of the BBC's policies in subsection (3) when they are not singled out in subsections (1) and (2) as they relate to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority.
Amendment No. 109 is a parallel amendment to the provisions on referendum broadcasts in schedule 11. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Grieve: I welcome the Minister's remarks and the amendments. There was never any criticism of the Government's intention to involve the Electoral Commission, but Opposition Members and some Labour Members were concerned that the detail was likely to expose the commission to a degree of involvement in the


minutiae of editorial policy that was undesirable for both the BBC and the commission. The likely consequence would be that any aggrieved person would take the commission to judicial review proceedings in the same way as occasionally happens to the BBC when it starts to allocate party political broadcasts at election times and the courts are called on to resolve the matter.
Editorial policy should be left to the editors, and I am grateful that the Minister has taken that point on board while in no way detracting from the proper involvement of the Electoral Commission in stimulating debate and putting forward ideas and proposals to all broadcasters on the way in which broadcasts should properly be handled. On that basis, Conservative Members welcome the amendments and we are grateful to the Minister for responding to the representations that were made from both sides of the House.

Mr. Linton: I do not wish to detain the House except to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being as good as the word of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who said in Committee that he would take a fresh look at the wording. They have done that and they have adopted the amendment that I moved in Committee. That is the best course of action because it will preserve the unwritten, voluntary and informal parts of the constitution.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 11

EDUCATION ABOUT ELECTORAL AND DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 8, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
'(a) current electoral systems in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems, together with such matters connected with any such existing or pending systems as the Commission may determine;
(b) current systems of local government and national government in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems; and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 157, in page 8, leave out line 14.
Government amendment No. 10.
Amendment No. 159, in page 8, line 28, at end insert—
'(4A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (4), any grant under subsection 3(b) may not be used to promote or otherwise publicise—

(a) any change in the system of national government in the United Kingdom (other than a change that is pending for the purposes of this section);
(b) any change in the electoral system in use at any particular election within the United Kingdom (other than a change that is pending for the purposes of this section); or
(c) any change in the system of local government in use in any particular part of the United Kingdom (other than a change that is pending for the purposes of this section).'.

Mr. O'Brien: A number of concerns were expressed in Committee about the extent of the remit given to the

Electoral Commission under clause 11. The clause sets out the commission's voter education function. It will have an important role to play in promoting a greater sense of citizenship and encouraging participation in the democratic process. However, it is not for the commission to promote alternative electoral systems or alternative systems of local, regional or national government.
The commission will be the custodian of fair play in any referendum on proportional representation for elections to the House or on the introduction of elected regional assemblies. In such circumstances, the commission's impartiality would be called into question if it had previously campaigned for electoral reform or for the introduction of elected regional government.
8.15 pm
Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10 will confine the commission's voter education function to promoting current or pending electoral or governmental systems. The reference to "pending" systems denotes new systems that have already been enacted, but are not yet in force. It is not a question of trying to promote something that is not yet in place.
For example, were the commission already in being, it would fall to it to explain the arrangements for the election of the London mayor, and we would wish it much luck in performing that task. It would also have to explain the arrangements for elections to the Assembly, albeit that the Greater London Authority is not yet in place.
The effect of the Government amendments is that the Electoral Commission will not be able to make grants to a body, under the provisions of clause 11(3), to promote the cause of proportional representation for elections to the House, or to campaign for regional elected government. With that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who is concerned about these issues, will decide not to press amendment No. 159.
Amendment No. 157 covers slightly different, but none the less familiar, territory. It would omit the reference in subsection (1) to the institutions of the European Union. Opposition Members appear readily to accept that if we are to boost turnout at local government elections, it will be necessary for the Electoral Commission to explain how local government works and impacts on our daily lives. People will be more inclined to vote if they believe that the body that they are being asked to elect is relevant to them and will make a difference to the community in which they live. If that is true of local government, it is surely also true of the European Parliament.
At the previous European elections, voter turnout was very low. If there are ways in which we can improve turnout, we should seriously consider them. The commission must have the scope to explain the role of the European Parliament and its relationship with the European Commission and the other institutions of the European Union. If amendment No. 157 were passed, the Electoral Commission would not be able to discharge its voter education function in respect of European parliamentary elections.
No political party can take comfort from the low turnout at last June's elections. The Electoral Commission cannot reverse the downward trend on its own, but, if it is to have any impact, it must at least be given the scope to run a meaningful campaign.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way shortly.
The amendment deals with Europe. We know from past experience what happens when one mentions the word "Europe" to Conservative Members. Unlike Pavlov's dog, they tend to break out in indignation, splits and general hypertension. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will do precisely that, but I shall give way to him to find out.

Mr. Robathan: I am so grateful to the Minister, because I can see that he is looking forward to my intervention. The task that he is setting the Electoral Commission of promoting public awareness of the institutions of the European Union is fairly large. Will he therefore illuminate the House as to his awareness of its institutions? Could he tell us what DG VII and DG VIII do?

Mr. O'Brien: I cannot do so off the top of my head, because I have not been involved in these matters recently. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman what DG V does—but can he tell me?

Mr. Robathan: No.

Mr. O'Brien: It might serve us both to be properly educated about the role of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the institutions of Europe. We could both do with a little more education on these matters. If we accepted amendment No. 157, which was tabled by Conservative Members, we might not receive the education that we need.

Sir George Young: I welcome Government amendments No. 9 and 10. They reflect amendment No. 42, which we moved in Committee. However, I think that amendment No. 159 is also necessary for reasons that I shall explain shortly.
As the Minister said, Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10 will keep the neutral and impartial Electoral Commission out of contentious issues by allowing it to promote only those electoral systems made by enactment. It will keep it out of promoting AV-plus and other forms of proportional representation before the House of Commons approves them—if, indeed, it ever does. I am grateful that the Minister confirmed that the commission could not promote public awareness of elected regional assemblies when they are not pending. It is worth reminding the House that the Neill committee did not envisage the commission embarking on the functions set out in clause 11.
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 157 and 159. Amendment No. 157 is similar to an amendment that we moved in Committee, so the Opposition's beach towel has already been laid on this deckchair. The amendment would preclude the commission from promoting public awareness of the institutions of the European Union.

The Minister may recall the powerful speech that I made on 14 February, from column 711 onwards, which he interrupted to make numerous concessions, but sadly not on that particular amendment.
Our case is the one that was just implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The European Union already has a substantial budget, far larger than that of the proposed Electoral Commission, to promote its institutions. It has 45 million euros to spend on general information and communication work concerning the European Union. The budget document published by the European Commission says of the budget for information and communication work:
these measures are designed to be an effective channel of communication and dialogue between the people of the European Union and the Community Institutions. They take account of specific national and regional characteristics, in close co-operation with the Member State authorities.
There is therefore no need for UK taxpayers to double-fund a function for which they are already paying through the Commission.
The Minister needs to take on board another issue. One of the institutions of which the Electoral Commission could promote public awareness, under clause 11, is the European central bank, which is a European institution. We could of course have a referendum on whether the UK should join the euro. Interest rates are fixed by the ECB, and the bank has responsibility for the conduct of monetary policy in Europe. The ECB's performance could therefore be at the heart of a debate about whether the UK should join the euro. Against that background, is it right that the commission should be involved in that debate by publishing literature about; and promoting public awareness of; the ECB?
The Minister mentioned the commission's voter education role, which I understand, but the commission also has a role to remain impartial and above the issues that may be raised in a referendum. For that reason, it should not embark on promoting awareness of European Union institutions. The commission, after all, would be the umpire in that referendum.
I shall use the argument that the Minister used on 14 February, when he said:
It would be injurious to the perceived neutrality of such a body—
that is the commission—
if it were seen to adopt a position on the question of alternative voting systems.
That argument is equally valid if one applies it to the question of joining the euro: it would be injurious to the perceived neutrality of such a body if it were seen to promote public awareness of the role of the European central bank.
Last time round, the Minister was less than convincing in his argument against the amendment. He simply said:
It is important that the scope of the commission's voter education role should extend to explaining the institutions of the European Union to voters.—[Official Report, 14 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 712.]
He repeated that argument again this evening. He went on to say that if the commission did not have that scope, turnout at European elections would remain low.
There are two responses to that argument. First, by entering the euro debate the commission would prejudice its impartiality. Secondly, there is already a huge budget


to promote awareness of European institutions, so I was not reassured by what the Minister said today any more than I was on 14 February.

Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend and I agree entirely on this matter. Contrary to what the Minister said, I do not get excited when I read the word "Europe". Indeed, I can tell him that I am going on holiday in Europe this summer, God and the Government willing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is such a low turnout in European elections because people are moved by Europe only in a contrary manner? To involve the Electoral Commission—which, as he said, is meant to be entirely neutral—in arguing for European Union institutions might not only compromise its neutrality, but lead everybody to doubt the worth of the commission, with which we agree.
Does my right hon. Friend agree also that today's opinion poll, showing that 69 per cent. of people are now ill-disposed towards the European single currency, reinforces his argument? If the Electoral Commission argues against that opinion, is not that likely to lead people to think that it is in some way flawed?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Bill gives the Electoral Commission a duty, not an option, when it says:
The Commission shall promote public awareness of … the institutions of the European Union.
One of the EU's key institutions is the European central bank, and it would be difficult for the commission to promote public awareness of that institution without in some way involving itself in what would inevitably be a controversial political argument about whether the ECB was doing a good job or a bad job. It would be better for the commission if it simply did not engage in that particular function at all.
I move on to amendment No. 159. I hope that the Minister can persuade me that it is not necessary, but he has not yet done so. The amendment is needed because the phrasing of amendments Nos. 9 and 10 allows grants to be made to promote change in particular areas or elections so long as the proposed system is in use elsewhere in the UK. For example, a grant could be given to promote the use of the additional member system, the single vote or the single transferable vote for elections to the House on the grounds that those systems are already in use elsewhere in the UK for mayoral elections and elections to the Scottish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament.
If amendment No. 159 is not made, the commission will get involved in exactly the sort of controversy that the Minister said he did not want it to become involved in. Although those systems do not at present apply to elections to the House, they are in use elsewhere in the UK. The position without the amendment would be inconsistent with the Minister's remarks on 14 February, when he said that
it would be outside the powers of the commission to make a grant to an organisation to enable it to promote alternative voting systems.— [Official Report, 14 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 712.]

The Government amendments do not achieve that, so I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 159 to close the loophole.

Mr. Stunell: I oppose the Conservative amendments—and I am not happy with the Government amendments, either.
I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who has said that some of his best friends are European and, indeed, that he is going on holiday to Europe, that he lives in Europe. One of the problems for Conservative Members is that they do not accept that they are part of Europe in the first place.
It would be a serious mistake to clip the wings of the Electoral Commission and give it the role of explaining what local government does and why it is a good idea to participate in the decision-making process—although not to promote a specific form of local government—but say that it cannot do the same for the European Union.
The Conservatives' argument is somewhat two-edged because if their complaint about Europe is that it is dominating our lives, passing laws that we do not control and generally disrupting the universe, that is surely all the more reason to explain that evil to the British electorate and encourage them to play a part in European democratic procedures.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has not only given way to me but given me a geography lesson. How can he refer to Europe as "it" if we are within it? He was talking about it as though it were a foreign body, yet, as he has so rightly pointed out, it is not because we are part of it.

Mr. Stunell: That is an interesting argument; the same is true of local government, Parliament and all other bodies on which the Electoral Commission has been given a job, exactly as the hon. Gentleman says. In its collective form, the European Union is the same. I see no justification for the Conservatives' approach, and I could not see it last time either. I do not think that that is for want of intelligence on my part. Their ideas are fundamentally misconceived.
I understand the spirit in which the Government's concessions have been made and their entirely honourable intention to ensure that the commission is not drawn into controversy. In restricting what the commission can do on electoral systems, I hope that its duty to explain and promote systems in use in the United Kingdom will remain clear. Judging by some preliminary findings from discussions with colleagues from the London area about the mayoral election and the ballot paper with which London electors will be faced, there is a substantial job to be done. There is clearly a substantial job to be done throughout the country in pointing out the many advantages—and perhaps one or two disadvantages—of the closed list system.
I very much hope that, in clipping the wings of the Electoral Commission for some apparently very good reasons, the Minister does not cause it to go into its shell and fail to take necessary action. I especially hope that he will not in any way be tempted by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to support amendment No. 159. The right hon. Gentleman said that


different electoral systems in the UK were a problem and that the wicked Electoral Commission might be drawn into explaining to another part of the United Kingdom the voting system in, let us say, Northern Ireland in the European elections, Scotland in the Scottish elections or, for that matter, London in the mayoral election. Both Government and Opposition amendments could inhibit the commission's wider duty of promoting and developing democracy, and are to be regretted.

Mr. Robathan: Comments about Europe made by the Minister, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and, indeed, me, illustrate the difficulties into which the Electoral Commission could walk if it tried to educate people about the European Union and the institutions thereof. We are self-evidently European. I stress to both hon. Gentlemen that I am not anti-European; nor do I leap up and down at the mention of the word "Europe". Indeed, I spent much time studying European history. When I did so, there was a distinction between British and European history. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I am going on holiday on the continent of Europe and not to Cornwall.
The educational requirement could strike at the purpose of the Electoral Commission. If its purpose is to be above party politics and political and detailed argument, it must remain neutral at all times. The Minister will say that it can educate on European and other matters while remaining neutral. That is true if it educates on electoral systems about which all parties agree, but if such education extends to various EU institutions, especially the European central bank, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) mentioned, the commission will inevitably be drawn into detailed argument.
However the Minister puts his argument, he will discover accusations of bias—possibly from both sides of the House. Such accusations, even if they are from both sides of the House, will tend, in the eyes of those who take contrary views, to undermine the perceived neutrality of the Electoral Commission. That is important. If the Electoral Commission starts discussing Europe or proportional representation or methods of voting, there will be accusations that the commission is getting involved in matters on which it should be neutral. That is a straightforward argument.
I shall not repeat my right hon. Friend's argument, as he expressed it better than I could. The particular case of the European central bank and the single currency is a good example. I could write the argument from one side and the Minister could write it from the other, and we would both think that we were being neutral, but if the Electoral Commission wrote a paper on the ECB, setting out the pros and cons, the Minister—whose position on the European currency I do not know—and I might be able to criticise it equally well from either side. The danger is that by getting involved in the debate, the Electoral Commission would lose its perceived neutrality, however hard it might try to maintain it.
I question whether it should be the purpose of the Electoral Commission to get involved in such matters, when there is an office in Storey's Gate, run by Mr. Geoffrey Martin, whom the Minister may know. The office exists in order to publish the great benefits that the European Commission brings to these isles. I do not disagree with much that the office publishes; indeed,

Mr. Martin and I often have genial conversations. However, what would be the purpose of such an office if the Electoral Commission acquired an educational responsibility? Might they not end up working in tandem and, again, might that not undermine the perceived neutrality of the Electoral Commission?
As was revealed by the Minister's ignorance about DG VII and VIII, and mine about DG V, the Electoral Commission would face an enormous task if it was required by the Government to educate people about the institutions of the European Union. The Minister and I do not know all the details of the EU, and we spend considerable time studying it, so that would be a huge task for the Electoral Commission, in which it might fail.
I shall not detain the House. The argument is important, although it is easily dismissed. The neutrality of the Electoral Commission could be undermined before it even started. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) wants to go to Europe. We wish him well on his holiday, and from our point of view, the sooner he goes, the better.

Mr. Robathan: In that case, I shall go now.

Mr. O'Brien: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his Whips. Our Whips are happy to give him permission to go.
Let us consider the argument and cut to the core of the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that there could be some mention of the European central bank. We have set up an Electoral Commission which will be above politics. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the independence that the commission will have. It will be supervised by the Speaker's Committee. He welcomed the independent way in which that Committee will operate. There are many safeguards to preserve the independence and integrity of the Electoral Commission.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give that body some credit for common sense, when we appoint all these great and good people to run it, supervised, no doubt, by more great and good people from the House? There are enough safeguards. We want a neutral body that is not involved in questions such as whether we join the single currency or not. It would be ridiculous for the Electoral Commission to get involved in that debate. We want a body whose neutrality is not compromised, but we do not want a body that is neutered.
The right hon. Gentleman is proposing, in effect, to neuter the body that we are setting up to educate voters by providing basic information. Awareness of an institutional set-up such as the European central bank is unlikely to sway anyone one way or the other on whether we should join the single currency. I doubt whether the Electoral Commission wants to get involved in such a debate, or even provide information.
However, after the next election, and perhaps the subsequent election, a Conservative Government might—heaven forfend—return to office. The Conservative party is committed to not joining the single currency for only two


elections. It could subsequently determine that the time was right to join. The Electoral Commission might then decide to educate people about an institution of which we are a member. We are therefore making law for the future; it is wise to consider circumstances that may arise. Nobody wants the Electoral Commission's neutrality to be compromised. However, we do not want to neuter it.

Sir George Young: I appreciate that the Minister does not want to compromise the commission's impartiality. However, we feel strongly about amendment No. 157, and believe that it is important at this stage not to give the commission the duty that we are considering, and involve it in such a sensitive debate. At the appropriate time, we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. O'Brien: I regret that Conservative Members take that view. The sort of problem that they fear is in no danger of arising. They display their usual hypertensive reaction to the word "Europe".
On amendment No. 159, the Government do not believe that it would be possible for the Electoral Commission to promote proportional representation for election to Parliament under clause 11(3) by giving grants. The right hon. Gentleman knows the implications of Pepper v. Hart. We do not believe that the Electoral Commission will be able to give any organisation grants to promote proportional representation for parliamentary elections.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was right to say that voter education was important. We must ensure neutrality on some of the more sensitive issues. The Government want the Electoral Commission to remain strictly neutral on controversial political issues such as Europe, proportional representation and regional government—many Labour Members feel strongly about the latter. It is better for the Electoral Commission to stay out of the fray on such issues. However, it can inform people about proportional representation in European elections, and regional government in the devolved assemblies, especially if assemblies were to be established in England. There are potential opportunities for the Electoral Commission to perform a useful function.

Sir George Young: I am not a solicitor and I am not as familiar as the Minister with Pepper v. Hart. Is he saying that even if Government amendment No. 9 allowed the commission to make a grant to an organisation that could promote alternative electoral systems, which existed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the commission would not be permitted to do that because of Pepper v. Hart?

Mr. O'Brien: No. Such grants could not be made by the Electoral Commission under the Bill. That is our interpretation of the Bill. The case of Pepper v. Hart provides that the a Minister's words may be taken into account in interpreting the wording of legislation. I am therefore telling hon. Members about the way in which the Government intend the legislation to operate.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) believed that if the Electoral Commission participated in educating the public about institutions, it would inevitably become involved in controversy and thus compromise its neutrality. Every weekday in our schools there are

teachers who teach politics. They do so in a way that is not party political. It is not biased and it does not involve controversy. The teaching is reasonably easy and it has not produced the compromise of neutrality among teachers that the hon. Gentleman suspects.
8.45 pm
We shall create an Electoral Commission that is composed of the great and the good. Behind it will be a Speaker's Committee, which will oversee it to ensure that its neutrality is not compromised. It cannot be reasonable to think that the members of the Commission would all lack common sense to such a level that they would embark on a dissertation on anything that would get them involved in the issues surrounding a single currency. They would not do so.

Mr. Robathan: I have no idea where the Minister went to school, but in my school I well recall people who taught me politics in a partisan manner. One was a Conservative and one was a Labour supporter. I won a bet with the Labour supporter on the result of the 1970 general election, on which he reneged.

Mr. James Gray: Typical.

Mr. Robathan: Indeed.
More importantly, the Minister is making my point for me. If the Electoral Commission becomes involved in controversial issues—[Interruption.] To help the Minister, I went to Merchant Taylors' school. If the commission becomes involved in controversial issues on which there are two passionately held arguments, it runs the grave risk of being accused of bias. It may not be biased and it may be composed of the great and the good and very good at doing its work, but that will be the accusation. That is when the commission's reputation will be under threat.

Mr. O'Brien: The sort of people that the occupants of the Conservative Front Bench have asked us to put on the commission are those who are above politics, who are of high repute and of independence and neutrality. They are precisely the sort of people who would avoid getting into the compromising situation which the hon. Gentleman is outlining. We are not dealing with real fears about the commission being compromised. I do not think that there is a realistic prospect of its members getting themselves into that silly position. Instead, we are dealing with the internal disputes, views and hypertension of the Conservative party about Europe. If the Opposition divide the House, that is all that we have.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 157, in page 8, leave out line 14.—[Sir George Young.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 308.

Division No. 103]
[8.48 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Body, Sir Richard


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia






Brady, Graham
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Madel, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robertson, Laurence


Fox Dr Liam
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fraser, Christopher
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, John
Steen, Anthony


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond Philip
Townend, John


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Viggers Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Waterson, Nigel


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilkinson, John


Key, Robert
Willetts, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wilshire, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Yeo, Tim


Lidington, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Tim Collins and


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. Nick Gibb.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel


Allan, Richard
Blizzard, Bob


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Borrow, David


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradshaw, Ben


Austin, John
Breed, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beard, Nigel
Buck, Ms Karen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Burden, Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Burgon, Colin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burstow, Paul


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Benton, Joe



Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Berry, Roger
Cann, Jamie


Best, Harold
Casale, Roger





Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Iain
Hoey, Kate


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)




Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drew, David
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kidney, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Edwards, Huw
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Ennis, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher


Etherington, Bill
Levitt, Tom


Fearn, Ronnie
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Macdonald, Calum


Gerrard, Neil
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McFall, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWalter, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)






Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Moran, Ms Margaret
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Norris, Dan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Hara, Eddie
Stunell, Andrew


Olner, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Pendry Tom
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Trvro)


Pike Peter L
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Timms, Stephen


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Truswell Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr Desmond(Kemptown)


Prosser Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quinn, Lawrie
Tyler, Paul


Rammell, Bill
Tynan, Bill



Vis, Dr Rudi


Rapson,Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Rendel, David
Watts David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Webb, Steve


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
White, Brian


Rooney, Terry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roy, Frank



Ruane, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winnick, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wise, Audrey


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Salter, Martin
Woolas, Phil


Sanders, Adrian
Worthington, Tony


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—

'(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) any system such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection is pending at a time when arrangements for giving effect to it have been made by any enactment but the arrangements are not yet in force.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 21

OFFICE-HOLDERS TO BE REGISTERED

9 pm

Mr. Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 177, in page 13, line 12, after "must", insert "either—(a)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 178, in page 13, line 16, at end insert—
'; or
(b) where there is an approved federal party structure have overall responsibility for—

(i) the financial affairs of the federal party and for ensuring compliance with the provisions of Parts III to V and VII, and
(ii) notifying the Electoral Commission of the duly authorised treasurer of every other approved constituent part of the party.'.

No. 179, in clause 22, page 14, line 17, at end insert—
'(5A) Where a Party seeks to register an approved federal structure, it must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that its constitution includes specific provision for two separate bodies with responsibility for the same geographical area, where one of those bodies (the "Federal Party") has powers and duties relating to the whole of one or more of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and where each party has

(i) wholly separate functions, powers and duties, and
(ii) no duty either to approve accounts or submit accounts to the other.'.

No. 181, in schedule 8, page 123, line 43, at end add—
'(6) Where a party has an "approved federal structure" any reference to any national spending limits or accounting limits contained in Part V and Part VII Chapter II shall be deemed to be divided into two equal parts, with one part allocated to the "Federal Party" and the second part allocated to the "other approved parties"; each of the other approved parties shall have as its relevant expenditure and accounting limits that proportion of the second part of such limit as the number of parliamentary constituencies within the geographical area covered by that party bears to the total number of constituencies within the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Stunell: All the amendments are part of a package that is designed to secure a particular possibility for the Liberal Democrats especially, and perhaps for other parties with a federal structure. We make it absolutely clear that there is no intention in any way to water down or debase the Bill as a whole. It is our strongly held view that the Bill needs to be enforced quickly, and that it needs strong provisions to safeguard the public and to ensure that abuses that have arisen on party political funding are eradicated.
I think that the Minister and other Members recognise that the Liberal Democrats have, throughout progress on the Bill, strongly supported the restrictions, the reporting requirements, the introduction of transparency and other provisions. However, we have a particular problem. At each stage at which it has been raised, the Minister has been sympathetic to our cause. We have had a meeting and an exchange of correspondence. I hope that the debate will advance that argument a little further.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generous comments. The door is still open. There is a


need to make further progress on the matter. At the very least, I hope to offer him and his colleagues further discussions on the point.

Mr. Stunell: I welcome what the Minister has said. In all honesty, it is very much of a piece with his approach throughout the Committee stage. It is much appreciated.
I do not want to detain the House for too long, but it is such an important issue for us that I want to get it on the record and to say how we see the way ahead. The Bill makes provisions for parties that are structured in the first place as unitary parties—parties that are homogenous in structure throughout the United Kingdom, or at least throughout the constituent parts of the UK, in many cases excluding Northern Ireland.
Within the unitary party structure, the Bill makes provision for separate accounting units. Those might be local constituency parties, or wider groupings of constituencies, regions or states, but, in essence, there is a pyramid structure, with a reporting line going from the lowest level to the top of the pyramid. In terms of the Bill, that is the party treasurer, who takes the ultimate rap if there is any difficulty or any breach of the Bill at any level within the party. As a result of discussions in Committee, an alternative structure is permitted under the Bill: a confederation of different geographical units, each of which is, in essence, a separate party. There might be a party for Scotland, for Wales, for England and perhaps for Northern Ireland.
Both those models are clearly catered for in the Bill, or in the amendments that the Government have spoken of, but the difficulty is that we have a different structure—a federal structure. That is neither widely admired nor widely understood in the House. I understand that clearly, but I am not inviting the House to convert to federalism. I simply invite it to permit us to continue to practise our minority sport in that regard.
Although federalism is a somewhat unusual concept in the House and in the United Kingdom, it is far from being an unusual concept in democracies generally. The most obvious analogue of a federal structure is that provided in the United States constitution, with which some hon. Members will be familiar, at least in outline. The United States has separate state governments and an overarching federal Government, each of whom have different duties and functions, none of which overlap or interlink.
The government of Texas, for example, are not required to report their budget to Washington, to seek approval of or to validate their actions. The state, in performing its own duties and functions, proceeds as an entirely separate and independent entity.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend agree that a characteristic of good law is that it should be fully operable for the foreseeable future? Is it not beyond a mere possibility that, in the next few years, at least one of the other parties might seek to adopt such a structure? At least one of those parties believes in subsidiarity, which is another feature of a good federal structure, whereas the other has promoted devolution across the United Kingdom and might well move in that direction itself.

Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which are particularly apposite. When I deployed that

argument in Committee, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), said that the point of view that I was expressing resonated with his Conservative colleagues in Scotland.
To develop the United States analogy a little further—perhaps beyond the point that the House would prefer—the latitude provided to states extends even to whether they should have the death penalty and, if so, how it should be implemented. The United States provides freedom to states to take decisions within the bounds of the powers that they possess. That is the essence of the federal structure. Simultaneously, however, the United States federal Government have duties and powers that apply in every state.
The United States analogy is appropriate in considering the position of the Liberal Democrats. We have a federal party that covers England, Scotland and Wales. Within the federal party, we have state parties for Scotland, for Wales and for England, each of which has an entirely separate range of functions.
Our difficulty with the Bill is that it requires a reporting link from the state parties to the federal party. To fulfil the Bill's requirements as they stand, we would be required to build in reporting links, responsibility links and, ultimately, the power for the central party to overrule an act proposed by a state party. We would have to do that to comply with the Bill, but it would completely undermine the concept of a federal party and of federal government. That is why we have tabled this group of amendments.
When a party's convenience and common practice conflict with a Bill's provisions, it is entirely proper for Liberal Democrats—or our Conservative, Labour or other colleagues—to amend their practice to conform with the legislation. We are not simply seeking an excuse to continue ancient ways that happen to be convenient. When it is necessary to change to secure good practice, we fully accept that we should make that change. I should add that our party federal headquarters has been notifying our constituency and regional parties of precisely what changes they will have to make.
Conversely, however, we ask the House and the Government to give serious consideration to how the Bill might be adapted to permit us to continue our form of federalism. In Committee, I moved amendments designed to achieve that aim. The Minister, and civil servants, quite properly came back to me to say, "That's fine, but it is not guarding against abuse." Perhaps some less scrupulous party might seek to set itself up as a federal party to bypass the sensible provisions for the prevention of abuse.
That brings me to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 outline a process by which a party could register with the Electoral Commission the fact that it intended to have a federal structure and specify the form for that. Amendment No. 179 sets that out in detail. There would be no self-certification. The party would have to establish clearly that it had a bona fide federal structure. The amendment explains the characteristics of that in language that I hope is simple and legally effective.
Perhaps the most important amendment in the group is No. 181, because it defines how we would ensure that there was no advantage in pretending to be a federal party in order to bypass the financial restrictions and limits in the Bill. We have supported all the financial restrictions


and limits. Later, I shall support amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) which would reduce the limits. We do not have a problem with the existence of the limits.
In discussions outside the Committee, the Minister pointed out the difficulty that our original amendments, at least on the face of it, would have entitled each layer to the full limits applicable to a party. That would effectively double the limits available. We do not want that and neither, understandably, do the Government. That is where amendment No. 181 comes in. It says that if a party has a federal structure approved by the Electoral Commission and in accordance with the other amendments, any applicable national limit should be divided into two equal parts, with one half attributable to the federal party and the other half attributable to the other bodies. In our case, those other bodies do not cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but relate to Scotland and Wales and regions of England. Their share of the second half would be in proportion to the number of constituencies within them.

Mr. Grieve: Do I take it that, under the system that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, there could be no transfer of surplus funds from one part of the federation to another? If one area did not use up to its limit, would the other area be unable to benefit?

Mr. Stunell: As the amendments are drafted and as the rest of the Bill stands, it would be proper for a party to contribute to another party, as it would be, for instance, for a constituency party with the unitary construction permitted by the Bill to contribute to a national campaign, or vice versa. Nobody can trespass the limits that are set for their level. If they do, they will carry the can for that liability, rather than it transferring to a different level.
I fully accept that there may be some more drafting work to be done on our amendments, that there may be some avenues that I have failed to explore or loopholes that may appear. Our amendments are designed to take forward the discussion that we had in Committee and address the concerns and issues that the Minister and his civil servants brought to our attention. I hope that during this debate and the subsequent discussion that the Minister has generously offered, we can advance the argument a little further.
We are keen for the Bill to be enacted. We do not want to be the grit in the machine. We regret that we have introduced some complexities that the Minister probably could do without, but we consider this to be matter of principle. It has considerable ideological significance and real political importance, especially for our colleagues in Scotland, who operated in a much looser political framework in the past. We are happy that that framework has been drawn into the federal structure, and we should be most reluctant to see that structure broken now.

Mr. Grieve: I shall not detain the House, save to say that the official Opposition do not want to stand in the way of the Liberal Democrat party's constitutional niceties. It would be churlish of us to object if it suited those niceties to require some alteration to this part of the Bill.
I remain uneasy, however, and my anxieties do not find a clear answer in the Bill. I intervened on the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) to suggest that the amendment could be to the manifest disadvantage of his party, or of any federal party. I assumed that it would mean that the usual flow of funds during a campaign to those areas thought to need more funds could not cross the federation's internal boundaries. The hon. Gentleman then persuaded me that the Bill provides for the transfer of gifts between political parties.
That illustrates the complexities involved in this matter. Moreover, I know that the Liberal Democrat party has links with the Alliance party in Northern Ireland. Although we shall not discuss it tonight, the question of Northern Ireland—and how to deal with it—arises. That problem has caused great concern to hon. Members of all parties.
For that reason, I shall listen very carefully to the Minister's response. Adjustments without downsides should always be made, but I am still not sure how the amendment squares with some of the other provisions—even though I have read the Bill 150 times.

Mr. Syms: I started off being sympathetic to the amendment, but then began to wonder—perhaps because my knowledge of the constitution of the Liberal Democrat party is lacking. However, although I can understand the amendment's application to Scotland, Wales and England, I cannot understand how the regions could be separated out. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was worried about how money could be ring-fenced, and I share his disquiet.
I presume that the Liberal Democrats would register as one party under the Bill. Some line of authority must run through even a federal political party. If a party registers as a federal party, will it have to register as one party, or several?

Mr. Stunell: We would register as one political party, within a federal structure. For example, the United States is one country, but each state is separate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could explore the point in more detail over a cup of coffee in the Members' Tea Room.

Mr. Syms: The United States is an interesting example, but this country remains a basically unitary state, with the exception of Scotland.

Mr. Stunell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening again so soon, but I want to draw a clear distinction between country and political party. The political party's structure is a matter for its internal organisation and its views. A party can have a federal structure in a unitary country, if it so wishes, and the Liberal Democrat party does so wish.

Mr. Syms: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are organised in the way in which they would like to organise the state. It is a perfectly respectable point of view, but unfortunately we are not organised in that particular fashion.
I think that, in so far as it is possible to accommodate the needs of a responsible and major political party, we should try to do so. However, I think that this may be one of those instances in which there are issues under the


surface—issues that may not be entirely obvious—and that, especially given the regional structure in England, it will be difficult to incorporate the proposal in the Bill. I shall, however, be interested to hear the Minister's view.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that there had been quite a dialogue about this issue—and it is a difficult issue, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who is new to our discussions on the subject.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove raised the matter in Committee, and we had a helpful meeting involving Liberal party officials on 27 January. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me last week, on 7 March, describing the way forward as he saw it. Let me add, somewhat mischievously, that I think his letter took longer to write than we had anticipated—but no doubt that reflects the real difficulties that exist. In any event, the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to explain the problem tonight. It is not just a Liberal Democrats issue; there have been representations from the Green party.

Mr. Grieve: Once a proposal of this kind was enshrined in law, it would surely be open to parties to organise on a village basis, and to register several thousand parties in a federation. It is a theoretical possibility, but it must be a possibility.

Mr. Tipping: I shall deal with the Government's view of the amendments shortly, but it would clearly be possible to devolve to a very low level. There are different ideas between and within parties about the extent to which it would be possible to devolve. I am quite radical: for instance, I believe strongly in home rule for Hucknall and for north Nottinghamshire.
I want to be positive and helpful. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke of dialogue and the need to make progress, and I am keen to do that, but I think that the amendments involve fundamental problems, not least the problem of what
an approved federal party structure
means. Presumably it means a structure that the Electoral Commission has agreed, but the amendments do not provide a framework to help the commission to decide what such a structure might be.
I should also point out—as, indeed, did the hon. Gentleman—that parties will need to adapt to meet the new requirements. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that his party was considering that, and that it, along with the other parties, would have to make changes. Let me repeat that I am trying to be helpful. I note that the hon. Gentleman's party has made changes to its "federal structure" to meet the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, and that, although it is a "federal" party, there is an official in the party who signs the forms for candidates throughout the United Kingdom. That shows how parties can change to meet the requirements of new legislation.
The scale of the problem involved in the registration of political parties, however, pales into insignificance when we deal with financial matters. It is important that we look at how we change the parties ourselves and acknowledge that federal parties are important for our political structure. Given the significance of the Liberal Democrat party and the Green party, it is important to find a solution.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested that the issue had ramifications for Northern Ireland. The Government have not been in a position to bring forward amendments on separate registration in Northern Ireland because we need to crack this problem first. This problem spills over into Northern Ireland.
I should like the opportunity to examine further the proposals put before the House by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and which he submitted last week. Secondly, I would like to arrange a meeting between Home Office and Liberal Democrat officials. Following that, I should like to arrange a more political meeting involving the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to try and find a way forward.
This is a difficult issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keen to find a solution. It is important that the Liberal Democrats, the Green party and other parties are not disadvantaged. We will work with him to take this matter forward. I would be pleased if I could guarantee to find a solution, but I cannot. However, I guarantee that over the next few weeks we will work with him and his colleagues to find a solution to what is a very important issue for the Liberal Democrat party. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister, and other right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The Minister is right to say that it took some time for us to formulate an appropriate response following the meeting. I am sorry if that caused increased difficulties for him and his officials. We now have, we hope, the basis of a good development of ideas and proposals for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to 1,000 village parties. I shall look carefully at my amendment, because it did not specifically mention them.

Mr. Grieve: I appreciate that that was not what the hon. Gentleman was proposing for his own party, and that the structures were likely to be based on the various national component parts of the United Kingdom or on regions. I simply made that point to illustrate how small the groups could be under his amendment.

Mr. Stunell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is an interesting one, which further discussion and research could explore to the full.
Amendment No. 179 addresses the hon. Gentleman's point to some extent, and begins to address the Minister's point about what is an approved federal structure. It cannot be self-defining; it has to be approved. The wording of the amendment may be insufficient to specify what it should be. At its limit, it could affect an individual constituency party, although the practical difficulties of that would defy even the Liberal Democrats. The amendment attempts to address the point, and I hope that further discussion may move us forward.
9.30 pm
The Minister made the perfectly fair point that the Liberal Democrats have one person reporting on political party registration. That turned out not to be a terribly challenging point; the question was whether we could have a bird as a logo, a point not of the essence when it


comes to whether we should have to report back on spending in future on elections or on political activity at any other time, which would entirely dismantle our federal structure. The Minister understands that point; a step designed to offer the minimum trouble for the approval of a bird as a logo is not quite the same thing.
I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he would take time to consider our proposals and that he wants meetings between officials and political meetings. One reason for delay is that our elected officials have changed, which has made the job more complex. However, we welcome what he said. I wanted to put on the record an issue important to us, but our hearts remain strongly with the Bill, with which we want full compliance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 28

PARTY CEASING TO BE REGISTERED

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 17, line 27, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) However, until the end of the financial year of the party which follows that in which its entry is removed from the register—

(a) the Commission shall, when considering applications made by other parties under this Part, treat the entry as if it were still contained in the register, and
(b) the requirements of Parts III and IV shall continue to apply to the party as if it were still registered.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 127.

Mr. O'Brien: The purpose of amendment No. 11 is to deal with phoenix parties. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) pointed out in Standing Committee, it is possible that, when a party becomes defunct and ceases to be registered with the Electoral Commission, others—possibly supporters of the extinct party—may wish to use its name. In the long run, there is no reason why defunct parties should enjoy any protection. However, in the short term, the immediate assumption of a defunct party's name by a different political group—no matter how similar its views—is likely to mislead voters.
In addition, clause 28 already requires that, where a party's entry is removed from the register, it will be required to continue to comply with the requirements of parts III and IV until the end of the financial year following that in which its entry was removed. For as long as the party continues to be subject to the supervision of the commission, there should not be another party making use of its name.
Amendment No. 11 is intended to afford de-registered parties some continued protection against the use, or misuse, of their names. The amendment is consistent with an existing provision of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998: under section 8, the registrar must, in considering applications by other political parties for registration, treat a de-registered party as being registered for a specified period, which is set at three months from the date at which the party's entry is removed from the registers. The Bill proposes that the relevant period should

be the period during which the de-registered party remains under a duty to continue to comply with the requirements of parts III and IV.
Amendment No. 127 amends the parliamentary election rules, which are set out in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Its effect would be to require returning officers to send a copy of a statement to the persons nominated to the Electoral Commission. Returning officers would also need to forward to the commission a copy of any certificate issued by the nominating officer of a registered party authorising a candidate to stand in that party's name.
Under schedule 8(3) of the Bill, a party receives an expenditure allowance of £30,000 for each constituency contested. The overall expenditure limit for a party will therefore depend on the number of candidates it stands in an election. The amendment will ensure that the Electoral Commission has the information necessary to make that calculation. I commend both amendments to the House.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for having taken on board the points made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I have one query on amendment No. 11. I realise that it prevents other political parties from making use of the name and identity of a party during the period in which the original party still has responsibilities. The Minister may be able to clarify easily the one point that is not clear to me: what would happen if a party had expressed a desire to de-register, part of that period had elapsed but, before it was completed, the party announced that it wanted to revive itself at the end of the period? At that point, if other individuals were competing with the party for registration in that name, would the party enjoy any preference?
I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that matter. One can foresee disputes in which a party that had previously allowed its registration to lapse would believe that it was grossly unfair that it could not revive itself, if its fortunes and circumstances had changed.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The commission will have to consider any applications. It is a material fact that the party that wanted to re-establish itself would be the same party that had previously been registered. That would seem to be an issue of which the commission would be entitled to take cognisance in reaching a decision. If that became a subject of controversy, the commission would have to determine how it wanted to proceed.
I shall consider the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and shall examine whether there might be a reason for tabling an amendment in another place. The amendment will probably cover the matter, but I shall consider it in greater detail and if we need to make a change, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 37

ANNUAL STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 22, line 13, leave out "£1,000" and insert "£5,000".

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 72 to 79.

Mr. Tipping: Clause 37 allows the Electoral Commission to prescribe different requirements, depending on the level of


their income or expenditure, as to the form and content of the annual statement of accounts prepared by registered parties and their accounting units. Small parties should be subject to a light touch, whereas larger parties with a greater income should be dealt with more thoughtfully and effectively.
As originally drafted, the Bill set out three bands of income or expenditure: the first was up to £1,000; the second was £1,000 to £250,000; and the third was £250,000 or more. In Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) argued that those bands were not appropriate and that, in effect, there should be four bands. After reflecting on the matter, we decided not to accept the solution offered by the hon. Gentleman. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would introduce three bands that would pitch the cut-off point between the first and second band at £5,000 rather than £1,000. As a result, the intermediate band will be more clearly focused on parties and accounting units that enjoy relatively significant rates of income and expenditure, and will extend the scope for applying a lighter touch to organisations that do not.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 76 pick up on an issue that was discussed in Committee, and will make the Bill compliant with the electronic age. They will ensure that any information received by the Electoral Commission will be in an appropriate form. We have all had the experience of computers that do not talk to one another, or of e-mails that do not arrive in the proper form. The amendments give the commission powers to ask for computer records in a legible form.
Amendment No. 73, which inserts new subsection (3A) into clause 134, also enables a person appointed by the commission to check the operation of any computer as a guard against fraud. I may well be asked if there are precedents on this. There are similar precedents in regulations on the Gaming Board of Great Britain.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 72 are also on the theme of access to records. In both cases, they make self-explanatory changes to ensure consistency with like provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 77 and 78 extend the Electoral Commission's supervisory powers in clause 134 to candidates at elections and the agents of such candidates. Clause 133 already provides that one of the functions of the Electoral Commission is to monitor compliance with the existing controls on candidates' election expenses. The commission cannot undertake that role effectively without appropriate powers to inspect candidates' financial records and to demand explanations relating to what the commission may find in those records. These amendments will confer such powers on the commission.
I remind the House that the Neill committee argued, in paragraph 11.23, that
the Electoral Commission should have the power to investigate allegations or suspicions that the existing candidate spending limits have been breached.
It is important to point out that the Electoral Commission will investigate these matters, but if criminal proceedings are to be taken, that is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
That leads me to amendment No. 79, which merely tidies up the definition of a supervised organisation in clause 134(8) to make it clear that the supervisory powers in that clause are exercisable in respect of the central organisations of a party as well as its accounting units.
As has so often been the case during the Bill's passage, these amendments were suggested in other forms in Committee, and I am delighted that the Government have been able to respond, I think appropriately.

Mr. Grieve: I shall be brief. I welcome the amendments and am grateful to the Minister for having taken note of the arguments that were made in Committee. The earlier amendments in the group are especially important. The change from £1,000 to £5,000 offers much greater scope and flexibility for very small parties. If the Bill had remained unamended, the second bracket would have extended up to quite substantial levels of party income and expenditure. We regarded that as undesirable.
This is another example of some very sensible work taking place in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened carefully and improving the Bill substantially as a result.

Mr. Stunell: I largely echo the points that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has made. I seek reassurance from the Minister on only one aspect. The Government have changed the limits, but not in the way that we proposed in Committee. A band of income and expenditure by accounting units between £1,000 and £5,000 has been shifted down a gear, if I may put it that way, but the guidance that the Electoral Commission will publish in relation to the three bands is not yet known to us. The Electoral Commission, looking at that, might decide to introduce for the lowest band proposals that were suitable for an organisation spending £4,900, thereby making things more complex for those spending less than £1,000.

Mr. Tipping: In Committee, and again tonight, the hon. Gentleman has emphasised the nature of Mrs. Brown in his constituency, who needs a light touch on these matters. In Committee, and tonight, I have given an assurance that the light touch will apply in the nought to £5,000 band.

Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I should make it clear that Mrs. Brown is the hypothetical treasurer of a very small branch of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Evans: They are all small.

Mr. Stunell: Voices suggest that my example is not so hypothetical. Certainly the branch's accounts are small.
In the light of the Minister's assurance—I might return to it on another occasion for it to be repeated in even stronger form—I welcome the amendments. They offer a major reassurance. As I said in Committee, we face a problem that is parallel to the one facing school governing bodies. We are imposing more complex and onerous procedures on people who are, in essence, volunteers and who do things out of the goodness of their hearts. If we make things too difficult for them, they will stop and that will not benefit politics in this country. I welcome the Minister's assurances.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 22, line 14, leave out "£1,000" and insert "£5,000".—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 39

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT AUDITORS

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 23, line 29, after "all", insert "reasonable".—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 45

DONATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART IV

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 27, leave out line 13.
I do not know what Mrs. Brown would think of this amendment.

Mr. Stunell: I can tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Evans: I wait with bated breath.
The amendment deals with the provisions in clause 45 about sponsorship. Clause 45(2)(a) to (e) are fairly straightforward and deal with gifts of property and money to a party, subscriptions, fees, gifts in kind and money lent to a party. Those provisions are clearly defined.
However, it is in clause 45(2)(e) that the Government—and not just the Government—are in a stew. Lord Neill has been unclear as to what constitutes sponsorship of a party. Pepper v. Hart was mentioned earlier, and I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to tell us clearly what constitutes sponsorship of a political party.
As I said, the clause contains clear and unclear areas, and it is the grey areas that we should attempt to clarify. The Government have said that, under the Bill, they will not give tax concessions to people making small contributions to political parties, but all the political parties are looking for smaller donations from a wider variety of sources. That is healthier for democracy, so the provisions for sponsorship should be clarified.
I do not believe that the Government intend to stop the Motorsport Industry Association from asking Members to drive motor racing cars for charity. However, hon. Members have to approach businesses in our constituencies to raise funds and, last year, the limit on that was £1,000. Goodness knows what it will be this year. Such approaches do not benefit the political parties as such, but there is a relationship between firms in the constituencies and individual Members of Parliament. I assume that the Government have no intention of preventing such relationships.
The grey area is demonstrated by a letter of 17 January 2000 from the Home Secretary to Lord Neill. The Home Secretary asks for a clearer definition and refers to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is looking for clarification about the treatment of exhibition stands at party conferences. That is an issue of increasing interest to all political parties, because such stands provide a tremendous opportunity for firms to meet party representatives, councillors, Members of Parliament, Ministers and members of Her Majesty's Opposition. I cannot see any problem with that.
The Home Secretary goes on to say in his letter that he is
inclined to think that we ought to amend the Bill so as to clarify the matter

of exhibition stands. There is also the point about whether the stands are from a permissible source, which could affect exhibitions by the Government of Gibraltar and charities. There would perhaps be no need for shareholder approval for those stands to be made available at party conferences.
The Home Secretary goes on to talk about the possibility that sponsorship from companies in the range of £20,000 to £40,000 a year would not need shareholder approval. Lord Neill is not so keen on that abstention, and says that over several years that could amount to a large sum.
On stands, Lord Neill says to the Home Secretary that this
broad sub-set of "donation" would exclude those examples of transactions that you describe in your letter as "plainly of a purely commercial character" and exhibition stands provided at or below a commercial rate.
Lord Neill also mentions dinners where people are asked to pay large amounts of money. I do not know about other hon. Members, but when I am asked to pay about £150 to go to a dinner, I do not expect to get £150-worth of food—indeed, some of us would be hard put to eat £150-worth of food—so I expect that some of the money will be a donation to the cause concerned. In the United States it is common to have dinners that cost $1,000, $2,000 or even $5,000 a plate, where diners can listen to the President or other senior politicians. That is an interesting issue that needs to be considered.
What constitutes a commercial rate? That is an important point. If a political party holds a big dinner, and companies buy tables at, perhaps, £500 per head, one aspect of whether that is a commercial rate is whether the contributions need shareholder approval. Brochures containing advertisements may be available at the tables, and the menu card may be sponsored. The dinner itself or individual courses may be subsidised or sponsored by a particular company. What is a commercial rate for such activity? I should like the Minister to address that question.
At some of the dinners that I have been privileged to attend over the past few years, Lord Archer and several other people have been feted for doing auctions. That poses another problem about what is commercial, and it is a serious point. I have been at functions where a painting has been made available or someone has been commissioned to do a painting if a guest bids a sufficient sum. The painting itself may be worth £10,000 and the winning bid may be about £15,000. Does the fact that someone has offered a painting worth £10,000 count as one donation, and the fact that someone has paid £15,000 for it count as another donation, so that donations of £25,000 have been made for the same item?

Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to a situation that sometimes faces the Liberal Democrats: the bid is for only £5,000?

Mr. Evans: And that is for the entire political party! I would say that the person had been had.


Let us take another example of tickets. I was at a dinner the other day where four tickets for the England-Wales rugby game were on offer. Their face value was about 160, but much more would be bid for such scarce tickets. Indeed, ordinary punters find it difficult to get hold of them.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend explain how he manages to retain his youthful figure while going to all these dinners?

Mr. Evans: I am sponsored by Whitbread plc—it is declared in the Register of Members' Interests—which allows me regularly to use its gym at County Hall. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be more than welcome to join me in one or two sessions.
We need clarification of sponsorship in respect of tickets for Wimbledon or other sporting occasions—the value often vastly exceeds the face value—especially when companies have bought them. Indeed, we do not know whether it has paid over the odds in order to get hold of such tickets.
At one Labour party conference, a famous leading supermarket sponsored the ribbons that held passes that Labour representatives and delegates wore around their necks. We do not know how much the supermarket paid for the privilege.
Companies often sponsor forums at conferences. I remember one a couple of years ago that was sponsored by Sky, which had something to do with sport—I believe that it held such a forum at every party conference—at which food was available. Such sponsorship must be taken into account.
Will the Minister say something about a raffle in which somebody buys many tickets? For a valuable first prize, somebody might buy a lot of tickets as a way of making a donation and circumventing some of the sensible rules and regulations proposed. We need clarification. We have tabled the amendment not to prohibit sponsorship but to clarify matters on which Lord Neill has proved inadequate. Such a grey area is enormously difficult; I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Stunell: The Committee discussed this matter on several occasions; it concerns a series of anomalies and paradoxes. There is the question of commercial value, whether scarcity should be taken into account—the auction point—and whether there could be some objective assessment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and I moved an amendment proposing that the Electoral Commission set guidelines that could be quoted as, say, alibis for valuations submitted by parties—in the absence of the availability of anything else. The Minister did not seem inclined to accept the proposal, but in the light of further expositions of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), perhaps he will bear in mind the fact that the Bill does not address significant grey areas.
Some of the grey areas are amusing. For example, what happens if bids at auction are lower than the market value for the prize? That might be unheard of in Conservative circles, but I assure hon. Members that it is not in others. Can we have a discount? Such issues appear trivial, but we are working in the context of quite small voluntary organisations. We are not speaking of high-powered accountants and solicitors, and legal eagles working out all the rules.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Stunell: The examples provided in Committee can be seen in the Committee record. The Minister was present and is familiar with them. It is a little disappointing not to see at this stage an amendment reflecting that discussion. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the problem is to be tackled and give us some advice about the way ahead.
I am not persuaded by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, which he said was largely exploratory. We explored the issue twice in Committee and left Ministers baffled. It has been raised again, and I understand the difficulties, but progress needs to be made.

Mr. Syms: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). There are many problems—for example, when someone with a professional background works as a volunteer for a political party and uses that professional background to give the party a valuation, legal advice, a bookie's advice or whatever it may be.
My hon. Friend mentioned the problem of party conferences, especially the stalls at party conferences. Companies sometimes use them for advertising because they know that many members of the press are there, but it is debatable whether that is of great benefit to the party, or whether a service is being provided. Guidance is required.
We all know that national organisations such as newspapers sponsor debates and events at party conferences. There may be a spin-off for the media, rather than for the political party. All that needs to be clarified.
Tickets for events are another example. If a company takes a table, should that be declared, and will the political party necessarily know who buys tickets for events? Real difficulties arise in the management of such events. If a ball is arranged to which there are 1,000 tickets, and a company buys 20 tickets in the name of Mr. Jones, who happens to work for Shell, how does one know whether that should be declared?
We need guidelines. Everyone wants to make the measure work, but we all want to ensure that everyone is operating the same system. That is the point that the Opposition are making.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a useful debate, which highlighted a difficult area. The view of the Neill committee was clear and firm. It recommended that the definition of a donation should include sponsorship. The Bill gives effect directly to that recommendation.


However, the debate has brought out a number of issues on which hon. Members are unclear and which merit further dialogue with the Neill committee.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. It is clear from the Neill report that the committee thinks that sponsorship should be part of the total picture, but did the committee understand what sponsorship was?

Mr. O'Brien: We have received assurances from the Neill committee that it did understand that. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who spoke earlier in the debate, was a member of the committee, and there were representatives on the committee from other political parties, including the Government party, so there were committee members with experience of such matters.
It is not difficult to understand the reasons for the committee's recommendation. The committee took the view that even if the motive for providing sponsorship is different in a company's eyes from the motive for making a simple donation, the effect on the receiving political party's finances is not substantially different.
It is difficult to draw a clear line legally between sponsorship and a simple donation. That is part of the problem. It would not take a great deal of imagination to make a substantial donation in the form of sponsorship. If there is a boundary, it lies not between sponsorship and a donation, but between sponsorship and purely commercial activity. We raised that matter in the White Paper that was published last July and, more recently, in a letter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sent to Lord Neill. A copy of that letter and Lord Neill's reply are in the Library.
The Government are sympathetic to the proposition that the cost of renting stands, especially at party conferences, should not be regarded as a form of sponsorship or donation. Lord Neill's reply to the Home Secretary's letter suggests a method of providing more certainty about what constitutes a donation: for example, payments for dinner plates at premium prices; and what does not: for example payment for an advertisement at commercial rates. We are closely considering that further advice from the Neill committee, with a view to introducing a clarifying amendment in another place.
However, the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made pertinent points. Despite Lord Neill's reply, some issues require further clarification. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, political parties are often organised by part-time volunteers. They need clarity, especially if they are at risk of breaking a law that is not sufficiently clear. The implementation of the law also needs to be practical.
We also believed it right to consult Lord Neill on the suggestion that companies might be allowed to spend a de minimis amount on sponsorship without shareholder consent. That matter properly belongs under part IX. Clearly, that idea does not find favour with the Neill committee.
We believe that it is not necessary to define sponsorship, and that any attempt to define it would be more likely to create confusion and, possibly, loopholes

than it would greater certainty. As clause 45 stands, a party would do well to regard any money passed to it—other than payment for goods or services provided on a commercial basis—as a donation. That is the position under the Bill, and the result that the Neill committee intended. I can understand the logic of that; it is straightforward.
We have yet to be convinced of the necessity of removing paragraph (f) of clause 45(2). We do not support the amendment. However, we are listening, and we are anxious to have further dialogue with other parties. Parties need to discuss the issue and ascertain what would happen about the painting or the rugby or Wimbledon tickets that were mentioned. As the Bill stands, and according to the Neill committee's view, they are donations, and would have to be declared. Consequences would flow from that.
We are thus providing for a complex accounting system, which political parties would have to undertake. Holding appropriate discussions, taking a view and discussing it with the Neill committee might be a way forward, but that is for another time. In view of the points that I have made, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will withdraw the amendment, which he described as a probing amendment.

Mr. Evans: All hon. Members acknowledge that there is a problem and a grey area. I suspect that there will always be grey areas, despite our attempts to define them clearly. Amendment No. 156 would remove paragraph (f) of clause 45(2). As the Minister knows, we did not intend to do that; we simply wanted clarification. Members of political parties will have to try and work through the muddle as best we can. Some grey areas will remain even after that.
We should ensure that there is a proper mechanism so that if a problem arises about a grey area at the time of the party conferences, parties may approach the Electoral Commission for an adjudication. However, we might not want to wait two or three months for that adjudication because companies may want immediate answers before deciding whether to exhibit or organise other functions at our conferences.
I welcome what the Minister said, but understand that the matter has been discussed a number of times as the Bill has progressed through the House. I hope that we can make speedier progress before it becomes law.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48

PERMISSIBLE DONORS

Mr. Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 29, line 28, at end add—
'(g) an individual who is by reason only of his age incapable of being included in any register of electors and is ordinarily resident in the UK.'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 163, in page 30, line 30, at end add—
'(10) No donation by an individual under subsection (2) (a) above may exceed £250,000 in any financial year.'.

Mr. Linton: Amendment No. 162 would allow young people aged under 18 to give money to political parties.


Hon. Members may be surprised to know that the Bill forbids that. The list of permissible donors says that they have to be registered voters and clearly people cannot become registered voters until they reach their 18th birthday. Clause 61 disregards donations of less than £200. That is usually referred to as the de minimis rule from, I believe, the Latin de minimis non curat lex, which means something like, "The law does not concern itself with trivialities". However, we should be careful here. Calling the measure the de minimis rule does not suggest that donations by under-18s are legal, but merely that they are disregardable. Similarly, clause 61 does not say that donations under £200 are permissible, but simply that they may be disregarded.
The minimum age for joining the Labour party is 15 and I look to Members from other parties to tell me the minimum age for joining the Young Liberal Democrats or the Young Conservatives.

Mr. Forth: Thirty-seven.

Mr. Linton: That is the maximum age, I think. Even the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has left the Young Conservatives by now, in years if not in spirit.
All three main parties and other parties represented here—Plaid Cymru, I dare say—have youth movements. This is not a trivial point and it is insulting to young people that they should be included in the Bill only as an afterthought. Youth movements should be one of the first thoughts of political parties because there is enough apathy among young people already without giving under-18s who choose to join a political party the feeling that they are not even considered important enough to be declared permissible donors.
I am not suggesting that young people should be asked for a fee of more than £200 a year to join a political party, but we should make donations from under-18s permissible, along with those from over-18s. Under-18s may want to donate more than £200 and it is not the Bill's function to make that illegal. I have made that point to my hon. Friends, who said that it is of no consequence, but it is a complete oversight that no one has realised, until this point, that the Bill does not allow such donations. I have two daughters who joined the Labour party as teenagers and I would like to protect the interests of all young people who want to join political parties. It is excellent for them to show interest in the political arena at that age and I hope that my hon. Friends will agree to the amendment simply to clarify the status of young people.
Amendment No. 163 proposes an upper limit on permissible donations from an individual. I do not deny that £250,000 is an arbitrary figure, but any figure will be called arbitrary. The Liberal Democrats proposed £50,000 in their evidence to the Neill committee. I think that that is a bit low. I dare say that donations of £50,000 or £100,000 are all too infrequent, but they are unlikely to buy favours from a Government. We run the risk of creating that perception if we allow individual donations of more than £250,000 or £500,000. As a donations limit, £250,000 is a high figure.
10.15 pm
In Quebec, parties are legally not allowed to accept donations of more than $3,000, which is about £1,500.

In the United States, individuals cannot give more than £17,000 in total, which is $25,000. It is true that there are currently proposals in the US to increase that figure, but only to $50,000, which is nowhere near the figure proposed in the amendment. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Beaconsfield can give me the figure, but there is certainly a donation limit in France as well. The amendment proposes a much higher limit, because we should allow as much freedom as possible and go for the mischief in the system—the individual £1 million donations.
In its evidence to the Neill committee, the Labour party left the issue of donations limits open. It said:
The Labour Party invites the committee to examine the question of contribution limits and assess their implications.
The Neill report came out against donations limits for a number of reasons. It felt that disclosure of donations above £5,000 would continue the arms race between the main parties. I find that naive if not disingenuous, because many countries have disclosure—the United States has had disclosure of donations above $100 for the past 25 years—but that has not stopped people making donations: it has merely made them more blatant. Anyone who knows anything about the United States political system will know what I mean.
It is argued that if there were a limit on donations, it would be easy to evade it by spreading resources among friends, setting up subsidiary companies and using other such easy devices. The Bill makes it illegal to spread donations among friends or even among members of the same family. In Quebec, big companies used to be able to get round the donations limit of $3,000 by handing out money to a group of executives who would each write a personal cheque for $3,000—typically at a Liberal party lobster dinner or some such event.

Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is kidding.

Mr. Linton: Indeed, yes. The Liberal party in Canada is much richer than the Liberal Democrats in this country. The electoral commission in Quebec was well up to plugging those gaps when they appeared. There will always be attempts at evasion, as with any taxation system, but it is perfectly possible to impose a donations limit and to make it stick.
A third argument that has been used is that the proposals on tax relief, which the House discussed earlier, would encourage parties to switch from a few big donations to a large number of small ones. The Neill committee said that
it is therefore unnecessary to introduce a new ban to produce the same result.
The Neill committee regarded its proposal for tax relief on political donations as a substitute for an upper limit on individual donations. As the House has rejected the proposals for tax relief, the logical other side of that coin is to entertain the arguments for an upper limit on individual donations. That would be in keeping with the logic that the Neill committee used.
The argument against a donations limit, which is in the Neill committee report, is that individuals should have the freedom to contribute to political parties, and parties should be free to compete for donations. We have seen what happens when parties compete for big donations. I only have to mention Asil Nadir, John Latsis, Li Ka-shing,


C.K. Ma and, indeed, Bernie Ecclestone. Before the election, Labour had no choice but to try to match Tory spending by seeking large donations. Now we are in government and introducing a Bill on the subject. Not only Labour Members but the whole House have a chance to close that door for ever and to ban funding of political parties in this country by individual millionaires.
The amendment deals simply with individual donations because I do not think that corporate donations of more than £1 million from, for example, trade unions or companies are necessarily a problem. It is individual donations that render parties vulnerable to corruption or to the perception of corruption. No matter how well intentioned, a party that relies on individual £1 million donations will always feel beholden to the millionaire donor, will always feel nervous of offending that person, and will always feel anxious not to jeopardise the possibility of another donation.
After the last election, many people said, "Thank goodness. Never again will we see political parties funded in that way." Many of the electorate felt that, with the election, we were turning a new leaf and that there would be a new chapter in which such funding would never need to occur again. Even at this late hour, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will see that funding is the crux of the Bill and that, if we do not close that door, we will not have completed the task that we have set ourselves in the Bill. It is a question not just of the size of donations, but of the vulnerability of political parties.

Mr. Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Linton: No, I am just finishing my remarks. I am sorry.
It is a question of the perception in the public's mind of corruption. The Bill should deal with those issues.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has raised two interesting amendments, although I am slightly more interested in, and possibly sympathetic to, one than the other. Perhaps I can start with the one with which I have some sympathy, albeit that I do not think that it necessarily goes as far as he would wish: amendment No. 162.
There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has identified what might potentially be a problem with the Bill. Notwithstanding the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the minimum age, in practice, of membership of the Young Conservatives, I believe that we admit persons over the age of 15 to membership of the party. They would be incapable of making a donation of more than £200.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—whether a donation of under £200 from an impermissible donor is ipso facto permissible. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments about that. In reality, it never has to be declared, so it would never be identified, but the hon. Member for Battersea certainly has a point. If the Bill

criminalises the acceptance of a donation of £5 from a 16-year-old for his annual membership of the Conservative party, that will pose a problem.

Mr. Tipping: indicated dissent.

Mr. Grieve: I see the Minister shaking his head, approving of my view that that is not what the Bill does. In those circumstances, I am disinclined to go along with the amendment.
One point emerged during consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Government were able to justify denying the right to make donations to all who were not on the electoral register because if one started to allow other categories, as Lord Neill suggested—I think without his committee really applying its mind to the consequences—it would create enormous bureaucratic problems of validating donors. Therefore, unless the Minister can persuade me that such a provision would not cause such problems—I do not know why it should not cause them—I would not be in favour of complicating the issue.
We might reasonably consider another issue. Although I certainly think that persons under 18 who do not have the vote should be encouraged to make small donations to political parties, I am not sure that it would be in the public interest for young people to be encouraged to make very substantial donations to political parties. Although that is perhaps a more esoteric point, I think that it is perfectly proper for the House to say that the donation limit should stick at £200, which—in view of the Bill's other provisions—is where it will be in reality.
The hon. Member for Battersea also expressed his concern—I was about to call it the bee in his bonnet, but that would perhaps be very slightly unfair—to establish £250,000 as the absolute maximum that an individual may give annually in political donations. The logic of his argument was very difficult to follow. At one point, he told us that he thought that, although it was inherently corrupting to allow donations of more than £250,000 from an individual, it was not inherently corrupting to allow such donations from a company. That beggars belief.
If a company is paying huge sums to a political party, it might be said that it was doing so for corrupt purposes, allowing the company to promote its self-advantage and interests. Moreover, it would be difficult to dissociate such potentially huge donations from companies from donations from individuals.

Mr. Linton: The point that I was seeking to make is that if a company gives a donation, it has to conduct a ballot of all its shareholders to allow it to do so. Before a trade union makes a donation, every one of its members has to vote in a political fund ballot. In those cases, a decision to make a donation, or to change that decision, can be taken only collectively by a large group of people. The decision to turn on and off the tap does not rest in one person's hands. That is what is different about individual donations.

Mr. Grieve: I find the hon. Gentleman's argument on that point a little flawed. Although a private company may have shareholders, the shareholders may be only two or three in number. Therefore, in reality it seems unlikely that there will always be shareholder control over decisions by a private company to make donations.


Moreover, private companies, if they are incorporated in the United Kingdom, may frequently be vehicles for perfectly legitimate donations of substantial sums.
The Bill currently allows—we have not considered the issue on Report, but may well have to return to it later—donations by certain categories of European Union company that do not require shareholder approval at all. Therefore, it seems extremely optimistic to think that such an approach will provide proper control or an ability to remove the possible taint of corruption.
The other reason why we should not believe that it would be desirable to make amendment No. 163 is that the electorate themselves will make their decision. The hon. Member for Battersea has criticised—implicitly, if not explicitly—the Labour party for accepting, since it came to office, substantial individual donations exceeding the £250,000 limit. However, he has not yet told us that, consequently, he will not support the Government at the next general election.

Mr. Linton: As I said, before the previous general election, the Labour party and other parties had no choice but to seek donations to match those received by the Conservative party.

Mr. Grieve: Surely that is the point. As long as there is transparency about the source of gifts, the electorate—through the media, which will undoubtedly thoroughly investigate those matters—will indicate very precisely their view on whether it is proper for a political party to accept such donations. In Committee, some Labour Members argued that the Conservative party was damaged by the donations that it received in the early 1990s. That is a legitimate argument. If we follow that line of reason, the electorate showed their disapproval of the donations from those individuals.
10.30 pm
However, just as the electorate may disapprove, they may also be entitled to approve of such donations. Philanthropists prepared to give substantial sums of money from undoubtedly high motives do exist. It is an essential part of our civil liberties that individuals should be allowed to dispose of their money as they see fit. Whatever may happen in other countries, it is wrong to put a fetter on that.
The hon. Member for Battersea asked what the limit was on political donations in France. I am ignorant of the ceiling there. Indeed, I was not aware that there was such a limit, but I accept what he says. However, French politics has suffered over the years from serious examples of corruption both by individuals seeking their own ends and by corporations—there has been a lot about that in the French press recently. If such limits exist, they do not seem to have had any impact on improving the standing of politicians in that country. That is another reason why we should reject the amendment.

Mr. Stunell: I take almost exactly the opposite view to that of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve): I think that the first amendment is mistaken and the second is desirable. I shall set out my case briefly.
If I were a millionaire living in—to take a country at random—Belize and had sent my son to Eton, I might give him a Christmas present of, let us say, £1 million. If,

when we got to somewhere near Easter, he made a voluntary decision to make a donation to a political party of, let us say—picking a random number—1 million, it would be permitted under the amendment. I doubt whether that is what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) intends. That should be sufficient to cause him to seek to withdraw it.
A donation of £200 is an adequate and sensible limit for those under 18. We might want to raise that limit in the future, but not now. For the record, I have taken advice and I believe that the minimum age for membership of the Liberal Democrats is 14. We are certainly on the record as wanting a voting age of 16, so in due course we shall want to move towards what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but at the moment his amendment would do what we have tried to guard against: it would create a loophole for one situation that provided a gap through which the less scrupulous could march with impunity. He has made a nice case, but he has left an enormous loophole.
The Liberal Democrats have argued for a ceiling on individual donations. Speaking personally, I should like a ceiling on donations from other sources as well, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield However, amendment No. 163 is better than no amendment, so it finds favour with the Liberal Democrats. Amendment No. 162 certainly does not.

Mr. Miller: To answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the limit in France is 50,000 francs. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the situation across Europe and consider the contradictions in the pattern of funding from individuals and corporate donors. It seems to me that further research is needed. The reliance on European Commission decision 270\83 against France on the question of corporate donors must be examined further, as it covers insurance companies, not political parties. There is no pattern to the donations by companies, trade unions and individuals: the matter is a complete hotch-potch. I accept the integrity of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, but the amendment does not stand up in the context of clause 48.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to study clause 48 again, as some significant improvements could be made. If the decision in case 270\83 were rejected, the clause could be tightened satisfactorily.

Mr. Tipping: Amendment No. 163 takes us back to familiar territory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) pushed the case for it hard in Committee. Amendment No. 162 breaks new ground and, although members of the Committee will remember that its subject was discussed in passing, this is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to discuss it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out that people under 18 cannot be permissible donors, but he readily acknowledged that, under the de minimis provisions, a young person under 18 could contribute £200. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked whether a £5 subscription fee would be included in that £200. I can tell him that it would.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) described the £200-limit as adequate and sensible, and I agree. As I see it, the only point of amendment No. 162


would be that it would allow young people under 18 to contribute sums greater than that. I heard some Labour Members comment that any young people who wanted to do that must be off their heads. However, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made the more serious point that, under the Bill, people must be on the electoral register before they can contribute to a party. To break that link by accepting the amendment would be a step too far. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 163 has attracted much argument both in Committee and in the House this evening. If there is to be a limit on donations, what should it be? The Government's libertarian view, supported by the Neill committee, is that people should be entitled to spend money as they think fit. I agree with that principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was sceptical, to put it mildly, about whether the new reporting provisions would bring about a change in climate. The Bill is about transparency and honesty. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what has happened with the Register of Members' Interests. As the reporting requirements have become more onerous, hon. Members have become more careful about what they do and what they receive.
It is widely accepted that the Bill will bring about changes in culture and in attitudes. All hon. Members support the notion that political parties should look for smaller donations, and that they should not rely on large donations. The attitude of the press and the public means that large donations will always be questioned. There is nothing wrong with them, but I think that the public will see them as suspicious, feeling that no one gives large sums for nothing. I do not think that the £250,000 cap is necessary.

Mr. Walter: Does the Minister agree that there is something slightly incongruous in the placing of a £250,000 limit on donations made by "permissible donors" to British political parties, when, under the European convention on human rights, foreigners are allowed to make contributions of up to £500,000 as third parties in general elections and as permitted participants in referendums?

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is following the path of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I understand that his amendment has not been selected, and that he has used this as a peg on which to hang his point.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that hon. Members might want to pursue the issue, which does, I think, involve some uncomfortableness and tension, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that we shall consider what he said.
Ultimately, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that £250,000 was an arbitrary limit, and I agree. I think it right, in this context, for us to be judged on and guided by what the Neill committee said, and I think it right to maintain a libertarian spirit.
Given all that, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Linton: My hon. Friend the Minister defends a £200 maximum for teenagers, but rejects a £250,000

maximum for over-18s. I would rather liberate teenagers and restrain millionaires; but, as I am clearly getting nowhere with that argument, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 29, line 32, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 55

REPORTS TO BE MADE BY REGISTERED PARTIES

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 35, line 14, at end insert—

'(10A) However, for the purposes of subsections (3) to (7) in their application in relation to the central organisation and any year by virtue of subsection (10), any donation—

(a) which is accepted from a permissible donor by any of the accounting units during that year, but
(b) which is not required to be recorded under subsection (4) or (6) (as they apply by virtue of subsection (10)) as a donation accepted by the accounting unit.

shall be treated as a donation accepted from the donor during that year by the central organisation.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 17 to 21.

Mr. O'Brien: Last summer's White Paper said that a disclosable donation should include a series of donations, which together total £5,000 or more, from a single source, made either to the central party organisation or to a number of accounting units, or to both, within the same year. Clause 55 as it stands does not meet that objective; amendment No. 16 will remedy the deficiency.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 make consequential amendments to schedule 5, which details the information that a party must submit to the Electoral Commission in its donation reports. Where the new aggregation rule applies, a party will declare the donations as if they had been accepted by the central organisation of the party. That will avoid the bureaucracy of having to record in a donation report each and every accounting unit to which a donor has made his or her donations.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 are essentially technical amendments to clause 59. The clause sets out the form of the declaration that a registered treasurer must make when submitting a quarterly or weekly donation report to the Electoral Commission. Subsection (2) is defective as it stands, in that the terms of the declaration do not fit the case of a treasurer making a nil return—that is, a return stating that there were no recordable donations in the period concerned. Amendment No. 21 therefore introduces a new subsection (2A), which sets out the form of the declaration to be returned in such circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 are paving amendments for amendment 21. Amendment No. 17 is a drafting amendment. The substance of clause 58(8) is already covered in clause 57(9), so the former provision is unnecessary.

Mr. Walter: The amendments reflect the spirit of the Standing Committee, where a number of proposals were made and a number of flaws in the Bill identified. The substance of the amendments does not concern me


greatly; many are consequential and drafting amendments. However, I was somewhat surprised by amendment No. 94, which inserts "(i)" and by amendment No. 95, which inserts a provision beginning with "(ii)". I thought that something was slightly odd, because paragraph 4 of schedule 5 appears to contain two sub-paragraphs (a). The Minister might also like to consider that as a drafting amendment at a later stage. Otherwise, we are relatively content with the amendments.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I will certainly consider that.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

DETAILS TO BE GIVEN IN DONATION REPORTS

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 109, line 5, leave out—
'the following provisions of this paragraph'
and insert—
'sub-paragraphs (2) to (8) and (10) below'.

No. 91, in page 109, line 8, at end insert—
'or, in the case of a donation falling within sub-paragraph (9) below, the information required by that sub-paragraph.'.

No. 92, in page 109, line 38, leave out "falling within section 48(4)(a)" and insert—
'to which section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(2) applies'.

No. 93, in page 109, line 39, at end insert—
'(10) In the case of a donation to which section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(3) applies, the report must give the full name and address of the donor.'.

No. 94, in page 110, line 5, after "report)", insert—
'(i)

No. 95, in page 110, line 6, at end insert—
', or
(ii) in the case of a donation to which section 55(10A) applies, indicate that it is a donation which falls to be treated as made to the party by virtue of that provision.'.

No. 96, in page 110, line 6, at end insert—
(1A) In the case of a donation to which section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) (3) applies, the report must in addition give—

(a) the date or dates on or between which the visit to which the donation relates took place, and
(b) the destination and purpose of the visit.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 110, line 20, after "each", insert "recordable".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 101, 102, 137, 32, 33, 107, 108, 57, 64, 112, 113, 115 to 117 and 83.

Mr. Tipping: The amendments are merely minor technical and drafting points. I would of course be happy to respond to any specific points-dotted i's, small a's, or any other ways in which the Bill can be improved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58

SUBMISSION OF DONATION REPORTS TO COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
'(8) Section 57(9) applies for the purposes of this section.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 59

DECLARATION BY TREASURER IN DONATION REPORT

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 38, line 10, after "(2)", insert ", (2A)".

No. 19, in page 38, line 11, after "55", insert—
'(other than one making a nil return)'.

No. 20, in page 38, line 19, leave out "so".

No. 21, in page 38, line 19, at end insert—
'(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) a return under section 55 makes a nil return if it contains such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (9) of that section; and in the case of such a report the declaration must state that, to the best of the treasurer's knowledge and belief—

(a) that statement is accurate; and
(b) during the reporting period no donations from any person or body other than a permissible donor has been accepted by the party.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 62

REGISTER OF RECORDABLE DONATIONS

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 40, line 2, after "6" insert "(a) or (c)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 56, 70 and 123.

Mr. O'Brien: The amendments merely ensure public access to information. I hope that they will have the support of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 40, line 5, at end insert—
'and (in the case of a donation falling within sub-paragraph (1A) of that paragraph) the details given in pursuance of that sub-paragraph.'—[Mr. Pope.]
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Milk Development Council (Amendment) Order 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2000–01

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on 14th March, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words '(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.—[Mr. Pope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Multiple Sclerosis

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Paul Burstow: It is a little over a year since I last secured an Adjournment debate on the subject of multiple sclerosis. The Minister of State who is responding this evening responded to that debate as well.
At the outset of this short debate, I must declare an interest. I now have the privilege of serving as the honorary president of the Sutton branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
What has happened in the past year? In my Adjournment debate last year, we learned that the Government were minded to refer beta interferon to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and that referral has taken place. The result is that those with the secondary progressive form of MS are left in limbo, waiting to see whether the drug will clear the affordability hurdle. Those with relapsing-remitting MS are waiting to see whether the goalposts will be moved for them too.
In the meantime, postcode prescribing continues. Where people live still matters more than the criteria used to assess whether they are eligible for beta interferon treatment. Just two in every 100 of the United Kingdom multiple sclerosis population receive beta interferon. The European average, by contrast, is 12 in 100. Even given the criteria published by the previous Government in executive letter 95/97, which set out eligibility for access to beta interferon for those with relapsing-remitting MS, people who qualify do not receive the drug.
I want to draw attention not only to the drug, but to the services surrounding MS. A survey undertaken last year found that six out of 10 health authorities could not estimate or had not estimated how many people might benefit from beta interferon. Those that had made an estimate found that fewer than half of those who could benefit were being prescribed beta interferon. It is nothing short of a scandal that prescribing is so low, and left so much to chance.
Beta interferon is not the only matter on which MS sufferers face a postcode lottery. Support services that help them to manage their symptoms are similarly affected. In November 1998, a group of senior neurologists signed a statement that made clear their concern about the availability of MS health services. The signatories included leading specialists in MS who work in neurology centres across the country. They declared:
We believe that the National Health Service has failed to respond adequately to the needs of people with MS and that services for them, with some shining exceptions, are seriously deficient in most parts of the country.
A year later, Ministers announced that they would introduce national guidelines on the management of MS in England and Wales. Last Wednesday, the Multiple Sclerosis Society organised a mass lobby of Parliament to press for action on services and for an end to postcode prescribing. More than 1,000 people made the trip to Westminster to lobby their Members of Parliament. I am sure that the lobby will have done much to raise awareness among Members, but I hope that Ministers


have taken note of it too. Those people said—certainly those from my constituency to whom I spoke said—that the issue will not go away.
The catalyst for my debate last year was a constituency case. In February 1999, Josephine Timms wrote to me, saying:
I am 39 years old. I have a husband and two sons, one aged 12, and the other 9. At the end of July 1998 I was diagnosed as having Multiple Sclerosis. The initial expectation was that I would have an attack, and then it might be several years until I suffered a further one. This was regrettably not the case. I had two further very bad "episodes" which have left me disabled.
I became quite involved in the case, and it took many letters over a long time, from Josephine and from me, before the local health authority finally realised even that she was resident in the area and therefore its responsibility. At that point, she was finally referred for assessment by neurologists.
I am delighted to tell the House that Josephine started a course of beta interferon on 24 February. However, in a recent letter, she summed up matters as follows:
All I need is a little bit of time to see my two young sons grow into men when they don't need their mummy quite so much. Hopefully this treatment will buy me that time.
Buying time is what beta interferon can do. It is not a cure, but for Mrs. Timms and thousands like her it is the light at the end of a very long tunnel.
Josephine's case highlighted not just the availability of the drug, but the lack of planning and support services for people with MS. MS leads to a range of complex symptoms that usually worsen over time. Symptoms include problems with mobility, spesech impairment, memory loss, incontinence, pain, spasticity and extreme fatigue. As a result, a variety of health care services are necessary for effective management of MS, including occupational therapy, speech therapy and continence care. Because of the illness's progressive nature, there is a need for patients to be properly monitored so that they can receive appropriate medical and social care for their needs at a given time.
A significant number of patients do not receive specialist advice after they have been diagnosed. After diagnosis, many types of information are relevant to people with MS, such as information about disability discrimination rights, social security entitlement and symptom management. However, for many people with MS, that information is not signposted. A survey of 16,000 people with MS throughout the UK, conducted in 1999, found that more than eight out of 10 respondents were not given written information about MS to take away and read when they were diagnosed.
General practitioners will encounter few MS patients during their professional careers, and they cannot therefore reasonably be expected to gain a high level of understanding of managing MS. The lack of specialist MS care can result in some people with MS developing unnecessary complications.
One form of specialist care is the development of MS nursing. At the Manchester royal infirmary, patients can take advantage of such specialist nursing services. People with MS and their carers are able to receive information and counselling from the time of diagnosis onwards. That nursing service also monitors the condition of vulnerable

patients in the community and can intervene to prevent patients from developing serious complications, such as urinary tract infections.
An evaluation of the impact of MS nursing in Manchester showed that in-patient admissions for some patients fell because of the service. However, Multiple Sclerosis Society research showed that eight out of 10 MS patients do not have access to such specialist nursing.
Closer to home, I have been told by the chief executive of the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority that there are no specific budget or policies for the care of people with MS. There is no disease register for people diagnosed with MS in my health authority district. How can sensible planning be undertaken when we have no idea of the prevalence of a disease? However, to be fair, many members of the Sutton branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society have been enthusiastic in their praise of Atkinson Morley's hospital and its assessment clinics and staff.
Looking beyond my patch, evidence from local health decision makers reinforces my concern about the quality of MS services. In last year's debate, I referred to the 1998 survey carried out by the Association of Quality in Healthcare; its findings were disturbing. In 1999, the survey was repeated. It found major gaps in MS provision across the country.
The total population in the areas of authorities responding to the survey was 27 million. Six out of 10 of the health authorities that responded had no separate contract for MS services. Only two authorities in 100 had issued a consultation document on MS services. A third had held no consultations before setting out its MS policy. That is despite the fact that health authorities have a duty to consult their local population before commissioning services. Only 23 per cent. of authorities specified the range of services that must be provided by clinicians.
In March last year, I asked the Government for their response to the AQH survey. Finally, in October, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) wrote to me. The letter stated:
Turning to the Association for Quality in Healthcare (AQH)'s report on Health Authorities' approaches to MS, the Department has not followed this up specifically.
Why not? Lack of planning and lack of consultation leave health authorities ill equipped to commission services for MS sufferers.
In 1997, the Multiple Sclerosis Society conducted a major symptom management survey of people with MS. The sample of 223 people with MS included people of different ages and degrees of disability. It also looked at people who had suffered from the illness for different periods of time. In particular, the survey found that only 8 per cent. of people were seeing rehabilitation specialists.
A more recent survey of 150 MS patients conducted by the National hospital for neurology and neurosurgery found that only one third of people with severe disabilities were seeing a physiotherapist. When will the new guidelines, promised last November, be published? What status will they have? What resources will they command?
Beta interferon has been shown to reduce the number of MS relapses by an average of one third in a year. Fewer


relapses mean fewer hospital admissions and a better quality of life. The drug can reduce not only the number of relapses, but their severity.
I have several points to make. First, services that treat symptoms are no substitute for drug therapy that treats the disease. Nursing cannot slow the progression of the disease—beta interferon can do so.
Secondly, Ministers have said that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will need to assess whether the drug can be better targeted. Can the Minister assure the House that targeting will not lead to a catch-22 situation? The current guidance on beta interferon already targets the drug. Only MS sufferers who have had two relapses during the past two years are considered. The search for better ways to target the drug should not be used as a way of denying it completely.
Thirdly, NICE has the option of recommending a clinical trial to address outstanding research questions, such as effective targeting and the results of combining the drug with other therapies. Clinical trials can make a valuable contribution to our understanding of MS and how best to treat it. However, does the Minister agree that it would be ethically unacceptable for MS patients to have access to beta interferon only by joining a clinical trial?
The rules governing clinical trials usually insist that patients have a real choice to enter a trial. That is particularly the case where the treatment is experimental and could damage the patient's health. However, in the case of beta interferon the drug is licensed for both forms of MS. Many neurologists wish to use the drug because, in their clinical judgment, it will benefit their patients. However, if the only way for someone like my constituent Josephine to get the drug is through a clinical trial, she really has Hobson's choice. For her, the drug buys time for herself and for her young family.
Although I am delighted for Josephine that she is now receiving the drug, many thousands of other people just like Josephine are waiting for the drug; and this Hobson's choice gives just a 50:50 chance of obtaining the drug, because such trials, obviously, are placebo controlled.
Many neurologists regard the recruiting of people for such a trial as unethical. The MS research group of the Association of British Neurologists found that the majority of neurologists would not recruit patients with relapsing-remitting MS on to a one-to-one placebo trial. A United Kingdom trial would be ethical only if the drug was available to be prescribed outside the trial.
I should like to know what the Government's position is. In August 1999, 54 neurologists wrote to the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), to protest about the rationing of beta interferon. In his reply on 15 October 1999, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for lichen said:
appraisal by NICE may in turn help to identify some of the issues which could subsequently form the basis for ethically valid research.
Can the Minister confirm that the reference to ethics in that letter means that the Government accept that a placebo-controlled trial of beta interferon in the UK would be unethical?
In conclusion, MS patients are dealt with in a very disorganised and unsystematic way. In many cases, follow-up of diagnosed patients is poor. As a result, many patients with relapsing-remitting MS are left to deal with their attacks in the absence of medical help, with only an untrained and hard-pushed relative as a carer.
There is an astonishing lack of understanding about MS, its various forms and the implications for patients of having the disease, at all levels in the NHS and beyond it, in social care. What is needed is a well-planned and properly delivered service for MS patients. It is in that context that the best returns are likely to be achieved from beta interferon.
I should like the Minister to answer two questions tonight. First, when will the new guidelines be ready? Secondly, do the Government accept that a placebo-controlled trial of beta interferon in the UK would be unethical?
I want to finish with a further quote from my constituent Josephine Timms.
I appreciate that Beta interferon is not a cure but I see it as the light at the end of a very long tunnel, which has taken up so much of my time and valuable energy.
What happens to the people like Josephine who do not have the energy and persistence to chase and cajole both their MP and their health authority to get the drug and other support? It is those people who do not have that energy who need some answers from the Government.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I start by once again—we have been here before—congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on bringing forward this subject for our debate tonight. The hon. Gentleman has shown on many occasions that he takes a close interest in these issues, as many hon. Members do, and his knowledge and understanding of some of these issues clearly showed in his comments.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that multiple sclerosis is one of the most common diseases of the central nervous system. It is estimated to affect between 80,000 and 90,000 people in the United Kingdom. Multiple sclerosis can be very difficult to diagnose and treat, and at present there is no conclusive diagnostic test. The symptoms experienced by patients can be symptomatic of many other conditions.
Multiple sclerosis often strikes people when they are young adults—the peak age of onset is between 20 and 40—and is thought to arise from damage to the myelin sheath around nerve fibres that help conduct nerve impulses efficiently through the central nervous system. When such damage happens, disabilities can vary from impairment to speech, vision and movement to incontinence, as the hon. Gentleman said, or even severe paralysis.
The disease course in multiple sclerosis is unpredictable. People most often present initially with relapsing-remitting MS, in which relapses or acute attacks of neurological disability are followed by periods of remission. Later, as chronic problems accumulate, the disease may become more progressive, with more acute relapses. Management of MS therefore involves treatment


of relapses caused by increased disease activity, and a care programme to minimise and control specific problems such as spasticity, bowel and bladder problems.
The different phases of the disease mean that people with MS have a wide range of health and other needs and that these needs, particularly for health care, will not remain static but will nearly always change over time. Patients with long-term conditions such as MS therefore require different levels of support and health care at different times. Most health authorities now have procedures in place to ensure that people with MS receive the treatment and care that they need.
Everybody, wherever they live, expects fair access to the most effective treatments, and the Government are taking steps to improve consistency. The new policies are designed to improve the quality of care and treatment that the NHS offers its users, to improve access and equality, and to ensure that service users have a greater say in what services are provided and how they are delivered.
There are now real opportunities to develop innovative care approaches for people with long-term care needs. We have introduced long-term service agreements built on pathways of care. The agreements will link primary care, secondary care and social care where appropriate. We expect that to be a better approach for people with long-term conditions such as MS. Discussions about care pathways will involve users and carers as well as health service professionals. Care pathways are expected to include an appropriate range of preventive, diagnostic, palliative, rehabilitative and supporting care components that are intended to produce an integrated programme of care for the individual service user. The care pathway approach will be particularly helpful for long-term medical conditions where, following accurate and timely diagnosis, a patient's care will generally be managed outside an acute setting. That is likely to be the case for many neurological conditions, including MS.
The development of such pathways reinforces the need for seamless working between health, social services and other agencies such as those involved in housing. People with illnesses such as MS know only too well how failures to deliver the right package of care can produce frustration and unnecessary difficulties in the daily activities of living. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems that his constituent has experienced, and we take those issues very seriously.
Solving such long-standing problems means that care agencies must work more closely together to ensure that treatment and support systems operate in ways that help people to lead active lives. That includes making sure that they are able to work as long as possible—retaining people with health problems in their jobs is another priority for the Government. Health and social services are expected to play their part in helping people to stay at work as part of our welfare to work programme. The flexibilities created by the Health Act 1999 will enable health and social services partners to provide more joined-up care to MS sufferers and other groups of patients. I very much hope that health and local authorities, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, take advantage of the new opportunities.
I know that some NHS services in the recent past have been the cause of concern to voluntary organisations dealing with neurological disease. Indeed, last year, the

Multiple Sclerosis Society published "A Survey of Multiple Sclerosis Provision in England 1998–99". The survey was designed to establish how commissioners approach provision of MS services and to build a picture of service provision in England. It is true to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that a somewhat mixed picture of MS service provision emerged.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society organised a very successful lobby of Parliament last Wednesday where it highlighted some of the results of a forthcoming survey on community provision, which is expected in the summer. I understand that the survey shows that as many as one in four people with MS do not receive any community care services at all and that a majority did not receive either written information or specialist support at the time of diagnosis. That is clearly unacceptable, and I hope that that is not the case with people who have been diagnosed recently. The society has, together with people with MS and the National hospital, also developed comprehensive guidance on standards for the provision of health care for people with MS.
Other changes, such as the introduction of a small number of regionally commissioned specialist services and the move towards primary care group commissioning, have raised further anxieties among neurological voluntary organisations that neurological services will not receive proper attention during the new commissioning process and that the services might be commissioned by people with insufficient knowledge of neurology to ensure that services meet neurological patients' needs.
To address those anxieties, a compendium of good practice on the commissioning of neurological services is being developed. The compendium is pulling together all the good practice that has been produced by many of the voluntary organisations in the neurological field and will act as a single, succinct source of information for health care commissioners.

Mr. Burstow: On this issue, as with all the developments that the Minister has outlined so far, groups outside the House will most want to hear about time scales. When will the compendium be ready?

Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I cannot be specific about when the compendium will be available. Obviously, I hope that it will be ready as soon as possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that a lot of work has to go into that, and obviously the only point in drawing up a compendium is to get it out to the health service as soon as possible. We do not initiate such projects simply to amuse ourselves; we do it for a purpose, which is to improve the commissioning of health services. We have actively engaged neurological voluntary organisations such as the MS Society in that work and they have made a substantial contribution to its development.
As I have already said, the commissioning compendium has direct patient involvement in its development. Such involvement has always reflected best practice, and now the Government are seeking to make it standard practice, not just in the development of national policy but in the commissioning of local services. I am pleased that the MS Society is working with the NHS to develop specialist MS nursing schemes.


The hon. Gentleman did not refer to research—I perfectly understand why—which is important in supporting the policy developments for which he and others are calling. He will be aware that the Medical Research Council spent approximately £640,000 on multiple sclerosis in 1998–99. The MRC also gives considerable additional amounts to fund basic underpinning research on issues such as nerve function and damage, which are not included in the figure of £640,000.
Another area of considerable interest to many people with MS is the therapeutic use of cannabis. The Department of Health supports the evaluation of the therapeutic use of cannabis by clinical trial, and is working closely with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to put research on to a better scientific footing. In the short term, that has led to an MRC grant of almost £1 million being awarded to the neurology department of Plymouth hospital NHS trust to undertake a multiple randomised controlled trial of cannabinoids on spasticity in multiple sclerosis. The trial will recruit 660 patients with MS from throughout the country who have significant spasticity in some of their leg muscles. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that it will be the largest single study of symptom treatment in MS ever undertaken in this country.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear also that we are supporting a particularly important study being undertaken by Dr. Jeremy Hobart of the Institute of Neurology. Its aim is to develop a patient-based measure of outcome in patients with MS for use in clinical trials and clinical audit. To guarantee that the measure is appropriate and clinically useful, MS patients are central to the development process. The project is costing some £160,000. It started on 1 November 1997 and is due to end this April. The overall aim of the health technology assessment programme is to ensure that high-quality research information, cost-effectiveness and the broader impact of health technologies are properly assessed.

Mr. Burstow: The Minister is further illuminating the subject, and I am grateful for that. Would the Government regard it as unethical to have a clinical trial that effectively ring-fenced the prescribing of beta interferon so that it was not available outside the trial?

Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come on to what NICE is doing about that. If I do not get to that point by the end of play, I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the details that he seeks.
In the light of the progressively expanding evidence base, the health technology assessment programme has gone on to commission secondary research in the broader field of MS treatment. In consultation with clinical neurologists and representatives of the Multile Sclerosis Society, reviews are being commissioned on the five topic areas identified as being of greatest clinical, patient and policy concern.
There are other funding streams that we make available to support work in that general area, including funding that we make available directly to the Multiple Sclerosis Society, under the section 64 scheme. We are funding several projects, one of which involves developing and maintaining databases on MS treatment and trials so that clear and authoritative information can be given to people with MS.
The hon. Gentleman spent most of his time talking about problems surrounding the availability of beta interferon. I want to address the concerns that he and many other hon. Members have expressed in recent debates in the House.
The Government have a substantial agenda of work in place that is designed to improve the quality of treatment offered by the NHS. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that includes setting up NICE, the introduction of clinical governance and improving the way in which the NHS commissions and uses research. However, we of course recognise that the licensing and prescribing of beta interferon is an issue of concern.
I understand that evidence is that beta interferon drugs reduce the rate of relapses in relapsing-remitting MS by some 30 per cent.—the hon. Gentleman referred to that—on average in a range from 14 to 44 per cent. Betaferon was licensed for treating secondary progressive MS on the basis of evidence that, if used for three years, it might delay disease progression by up to one year.
Clinicians treating patients and those advising health authorities on their overall policy need to take account of both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon. It appears that there is evidence that some patients with relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive forms of multiple sclerosis can benefit from the use of beta interferon, but that, sadly, those short-term improvements are temporary. The cost of beta interferon treatment is estimated at approximately £10,000 a year per patient.
Let me make it clear that the Government are committed to improving standards of health care and to ensuring that, when newer treatments, including new medicines such as beta interferon, represent a genuine therapeutic advance and are cost-effective, they are introduced into the national health service as fast as possible. In fact, beta interferon has taken on an even higher profile since its licence was extended to the treatment of secondary progressive MS at the beginning of last year.
Not surprisingly, the licensing of beta interferon has for the first time given people with MS some hope that there might be a pharmaceutical remedy for their condition. However, it is terribly important that no one raises any false expectations about the ability of beta interferon or any other drug to combat MS. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he made that point clearly, too. Beta interferon is not a cure for multiple sclerosis; there is no cure for MS.
Evidence from trials on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon appears to many commentators to be far from clearcut. That is why different health authorities and their clinicians are arriving at different conclusions, which can result in differences in the pattern of provision of beta interferon. That is exactly


why we have asked NICE to carry out an authoritative appraisal of the evidence. The work of NICE is the common-sense way in which to end the variations that the Conservatives' internal market did so much to create.
The great advantage of NICE is that it brings together the expertise not just of clinicians, but of managers and of patient groups, in order to make an authoritative assessment of evidence emerging from trials. NICE guidance will support front-line clinicians and help to reduce the confusion, which I am perfectly prepared to

accept currently exists. I obviously cannot pre-empt what NICE will conclude, but I think that it is undisputed that the NHS should seek to use its resources to achieve the greatest possible health gain for patients. With this in mind—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.